Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

CUMBRIA BILL [Lords]

COMMERCIAL BANKING COMPANY OF SYDNEY LIMITED (MERGER) BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Straw: asked the Minister for Trade whether he remains satisfied that the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations will be concluded in September.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Peter Rees): The Commission has been instructed to report to the Council of Ministers by 30 September 1982 on its negotiations for renewal of the bilateral agreements concluded under the multi-fibre arrangement. It is not possible at this stage to say whether all the negotiations will have been concluded by then.

Mr. Straw: Does it remain the view of the British Government and the EC Commission that the letters from Hong Kong that were exchanged at Geneva recognise the EEC's problems and were taken by the British Government and the EC to mean clearly that Hong Kong accepted that there would have to be cut-backs in the levels of the most sensitive imports into the EEC? Does that remain the view of the British Government?

Mr. Rees: It is certainly the view of the British Government, although I understand that there is some doubt about the actual construction that the Hong Kong authorities put on the letters.

Mr. McNally: Have the Minister and our representatives in Brussels made it clear that the bilateral negotiations are not the opening gambit, with concessions on the way, but that it is the Government's intention to preserve a viable textile industry, and that the textile industry believes that concessions have already been made and that no further concessions will be made during the bilateral negotiations?

Mr. Rees: It is certainly the British Government's hope and intention that there should be a viable textile industry in the United Kingdom. It is a little early to judge the bilateral arrangements that have been concluded. It will be necessary to see how they conform with the overall mandate given to the Commission earlier this year.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Commission seized of the necessity in these negotiations to provide that if any further countries are given quotas during the currency of the new agreement they will come out of the total already allowed and not be added to it? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of the greatest shortcomings of the two multi-fibre arrangements to date?

Mr. Rees: I should not like to comment too closely on the two previous multi-fibre arrangements. I hope that the third multi-fibre arrangement will be stricter and more protective than the two earlier ones. I certainly take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. He no doubt has in mind the negotiations with the Portuguese and Spanish Governments. That point is well borne in mind by the Commission.

Mr. Woolmer: Will the Minister confirm that if the negotiations are concluded by September or October he will give a commitment not to agree to the outcome if it falls below the position stated by the United Kingdom Government without returning to the House? Will the Minister confirm that if the negotiations are not concluded by September he will stand by the commitment to withdraw from the multi-fibre arrangement? As that requires 60 days' notice, and would have to be done by the end of October, does that not point to the importance of coming to the House before the recess to make a full statement to enable the House to consider carefully the matters that could arise during the recess?

Mr. Rees: No, I see no point in troubling the House with an entirely hypothetical question before the Summer Recess. The bilateral agreements, on the answer that I have already given, will certainly not have been concluded by the end of September. I intend that the House should be kept fully informed when the bilateral agreements are concluded, and when it becomes necessary for the Community to form a view on their outcome.

Insolvency

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister for Trade when he expects to be in a position to publish his proposals for legislation on the law of insolvency.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Consultations have only just started following publication of the Cork report on 9 June 1982. I cannot say at this stage when proposals for legislation may be introduced.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister agree that for five years consumers and creditors have been getting a raw deal under our insolvency laws, and that all questions have been put off on the basis that the Cork committee has been considering the matter? Is it not time that the Government at least showed their tentative decisions by publishing their proposals as, after five years of investigation, there must be a limit to the consultations?

Dr. Vaughan: I agree. I am anxious about the position of consumers. A number of abuses are taking place, some serious, and we are considering what action we can take and how quickly.

Mr. Anthony Grant: If the Cork committee report were implemented, as well as helping the consumer, would it not enable a number of small businesses to continue? Although I appreciate the difficulty of securing time for legislation, will my hon. Friend at least consider whether the more important aspects, particularly those relating to dishonest directors, can be brought forward in the interim?

Dr. Vaughan: I am pleased to accept the suggestion. It is what we wish to do. I am anxious to make progress. I am worried about the position of a number of small businesses. The situation with dishonest directors has been improved under the Companies Acts, and regulations were brought in in June. It is possible for a director to be disqualified by a magistrates' court for up to 15 years.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will early legislation be introduced to deal with the most flagrant abuses affecting the rights of consumers? Would it not be wrong to wait for

the entirety of the Cork proposals to be considered before some legislative action is taken? What is the time scale for the Government's proposed action?

Dr. Vaughan: It would be wrong to give a firm assurance today. We are anxious to make progress. We are considering whether some of the recommendations can be pulled out for early action.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would it not be most desirable urgently to impose on directors of insolvent companies a considerable degree of personal liability for the debts?

Dr. Vaughan: That is one aspect that we are considering.

Copyright

Mr. Sandelson: asked the Minister for Trade when he expects to conclude his consultations following the Green Paper on copyright.

Dr. Vaughan: The closing date for comments on the Green Paper is the end of August. We shall then consider those responses and decide on appropriate action. A relevant consideration is the European Community harmonisation programme, which may involve negotiations later this year.

Mr. Sandelson: When does the Minister expect to have consultations with the Commission? Are the Government not showing a distressing lack of urgency in tackling the problem of video piracy, which is critical for manufacturers and retailers in my constituency and other parts of the country? Will the Minister consider introducing interim measures to protect copyright owners?

Dr. Vaughan: I am mindful of the need to make progress. The consultation period following the Green Paper ends next month. We have already had 180 answers, but some of the most important views are still to arrive. We shall take urgent action.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the eight years since the Whitford committee reported too long to wait when it is reckoned that we are losing millions of pounds every year through lack of effective legislative protection?

Dr. Vaughan: I am as aware as is my hon. and learned Friend of the need to make progress.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that last week the United States Congress overrode the Presidential veto and insisted on continuing the long-standing law requiring all books to be printed in the United States to protect the copyright? As long as the United States is set on such extreme non-tarrif barriers, is it not essential that we should match them and consider a mechanism to protect our printing industry?

Dr. Vaughan: We have made a number of representations to the United States. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade took the matter up recently when he was in the United States. We are waiting to see what action follows between the President and the United States Government over the veto.

Mr. Gorst: May I remind my hon. Friend that an effective copyright is an absolute prerequisite for our recording, video and film industries? Will we have legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament, as without it the industries will bleed to death and no doubt it will be impossible to sustain them?

Dr. Vaughan: We are aware of the importance of the issue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is conducting a review.

Exports—Imports

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Minister for Trade if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the current level of manufactured goods, non-oil exports, oil exports and invisible exports, showing how these compare with imports for the current year.

Mr. Peter Rees: In the first five months of 1982, the United Kingdom had an estimated current account surplus of over £900 million. With permission, I shall circulate detailed figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Osborn: Although I welcome the fact that Great Britain is almost unique in having a balance of payments surplus because of oil, is it not essential to consolidate the export of manufactured goods? What consideration has my hon. and learned Friend given to resisting import penetration by manufactured goods? Could he not take a leaf out of the United States book and resort to the courts, as the results seem to be much more instantaneous in dealing with unfair competition, especially in steel and small tools?

Mr. Rees: I wish to consolidate and preserve our position, but in this instance I would not wish to follow the lead of the United States. We are protesting vigorously against what it did, and the European Community has asked for some of its actions to be considered by the relevant GATT committees.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister understand that in the first two months of this year £200 million worth, or nearly 700,000 tonnes, of steel was imported? Does he yet know the tonnage imports of steel for the two following months? How can he help the steel industry?

Mr. Rees: We are helping the industry by vigorous action over the United States measures which will affect exports to the United States and may affect the rolling mill at Shotton. We are concentrating on trying to keep open our important markets.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Could not our export-import figures be severely damaged by the new Spanish car that will compete with the Mini Metro, as while our duty on Spanish goods is low, their duty on ours is eight times as big? Will my hon. and learned Friend not stand idly by while our sales are sorely damaged by unfair trading?

Mr. Rees: We are acutely aware of the danger of Spanish exports, and we have requested the shortest possible transitional period. In case the House should believe that everything is gloom, I emphasise that our car exports rose by 50 per cent. between April and May, and exports of British Leyland cars in the first six months of the year were up by 30 per cent. on the same period in 1981. I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate all those involved.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety in the steel industry about the attitude and action of the United States Administration who, while mouthing free trade policies, are practising active and vigorous protection in their economic interests? What action have the British Government taken? Are they proceeding with

the adjudication before the GATT or negotiating with the United States? May we have the fullest possible information?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly give the House the fullest possible information. Two weeks ago in the United States I stated our position. The matter is on the agenda of the Ministerial Council in Brussels, which I hope to attend after Question Time.
The European Commission is charged with the duty of negotiating on behalf of all the countries in the EEC. Britain is not the only the country affected. As I said earlier, the matter is being taken by the European Commission to be considered by the relevant committees of GATT.

Following is the information:


United Kingdom Current Account Transactions January-May, 1982



£million BOP basis Seasonally adjusted.
£million BOP basis Seasonally adjusted.
£million BOP basis Seasonally adjusted.



Credits
Debits
Balance


*Oil
3928
2530
+ 1398


Non-Oil
18703
19796
- 1093


Total Visible Trade
22631
22326
+305


Invisible Trade
N/A
N/A
‡+629


Current Account
N/A
N/A
+934


‡Manufacturers
15475
14445
+ 1030


* Division 33 of SITC(R2)


† Sections 5 to 8 of SITC (R2)


‡ The figures for the latest two months are projections. These are not available for credits or debits. In the first quarter of 1982, the credits, debits, and balance were £7415 million, £7086 million, and 329 million, respectively.

European Community

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on recent trends in the visible and invisible United Kingdom balance of trade with other European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Peter Rees: In the six months to May, United Kingdom visible trade with the rest of the European Community showed an average monthly crude deficit of £110 million, on a seasonally adjusted basis, with both imports and exports running at about £2 billion a month. Information on invisible trade with the European Community is compiled on an annual basis and is not yet available for 1981.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that information. Will he confirm that 43 per cent. of our total trade is with the other EEC countries? Will he also confirm that a greater proportion of other countries' investment in Western Europe has been switched to the United Kingdom since we joined the EEC? Does he agree that that trend would quickly be reversed if there were any thought that we might leave the EEC?

Mr. Rees: The Community accounts for about 43 per cent. of all British exports compared with about 30 per cent. in 1970. That proves the ever-increasing importance of that market for British exporters. It is an unlikely hypothesis, since this Administration are firmly committed to the United Kingdom remaining a member of the


Community, but I agree that there would not be such massive overseas investment in Britain were it not for our access to the European Community market.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What is the Department doing about British cars being bought in Europe at about one-third less than they can be bought in Britain? Where do such cars appear on the balance sheet? Are they imports, exports or what?

Mr. Rees: They appear among our imports.

Mr. Ginsburg: Has there not been a serious deterioration in invisible earnings, such as tourism? What steps does the Minister intend to take to improve the British tourist industry?

Mr. Rees: Of course we recognise the importance of the British tourist industry. Its earnings have increased in the last five months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will be reasonably assured about that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does it not cause my hon. and learned Friend the gravest alarm to read the tables published by his Department in Hansard on 29 June, which show that over the previous six months the daily deficit in manufacturing trade with the Common Market was £11 million compared with a profit of £15 million a day in that trade with the rest of the world? As we used to have a profit in manufacturing trade with the EEC before we joined, does not that trend require serious investigation, bearing in mind the appalling consequences to British jobs involved in the figures?

Mr. Rees: Naturally, I admire my hon. Friend's consistent concern about the problem. I remind him that for the last few years we have run a deficit in manufactured goods with the United States. If I showed anxiety at every deficit we might be led to some curious conclusions. I imagine that my hon. Friend does not suppose that we should enter into a protectionist war against the United States.

Siberian Gas Pipeline

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with the American Secretary of Commerce concerning United States trade embargoes in connection with the Siberian gas pipeline.

Mr. Peter Rees: When I met Commerce Secretary Baldrige in Washington I expressed the Government's strong objection to the measures taken by the United States Administration which purport to restrict the export by non-United States companies of certain oil and gas equipment to the Soviet Union. I stressed the harm that these measures must do to commercial relations between the European Community and the United States. I also informed Secretary Baldrige of the order made on 30 June by my right hon. and noble Friend under section 1(1) of the Protection of Trading Interests Act.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Did the American Secretary of Commerce manage to explain satisfactorily how he reconciles his Government's policy of seeking to coerce European companies into applying economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, with, at the same time, exporting vast amounts of grain to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Rees: I ventured to point out that anomaly to the Secretary of Commerce. I was not entirely persuaded by his explanation.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister inquire how British companies will be affected if they try to break the embargo? How do they know when they are breaking the embargo if they use techniques and equipment which they have used in Alaska and elsewhere and lend or sell that equipment in Europe?

Mr. Rees: I am reluctant to give comprehensive legal advice from the Dispatch Box, but I understand that such companies would be at risk if they re-exported parts acquired from the United States or if, in the process of exporting to the Soviet Union, they used technology for which they were licencees by agreement with United States companies. I cannot anticipate what counter-measures the United States Administration might be disposed to take if a British company were in that position. We should have to consider that carefully and we might make representations if that eventuality arose.

Mr. Eggar: Would any of the discussions with the Americans or our European partners be necessary if Her Majesty's Government and the previous Government had decided to build a pipeline to take gas from the Norwegian and British sectors of the North Sea to the Continent, using the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rees: I am asked to speculate on the likely reaction of European consumers. My hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that Britain will not benefit directly from the trans-Siberian pipeline. I cannot speculate whether the interesting alternative that my hon. Friend suggests would have met the energy needs of, for example, German companies.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: When in Washington, did the Minister point out to the United States Administration the number of jobs that Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would lose as a result of the American President's decision? Is the Minister aware that the matter is taken seriously, and that most people believe that it can do nothing but harm to Anglo-American trading and political relationships?

Mr. Rees: I stressed the damaging impact that the regulations could have on British companies, particularly those operating in the part of the world that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) represent. I put that to the forefront of my argument.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States embargo is also having its effect on businesses here that do not have to import components from the United States to fulfil their share of a contract? Is he aware that the embargo will have an effect on jobs and that he must find a solution to the problem?

Mr. Rees: Earlier I stressed that it is a question not only of the import and re-export of parts from the United States, but of the use of United States technology. We are as concerned as any European country to find a reasonable solution. The problem is souring trade relations between the United States and the European Community.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that I recently wrote to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressing the support that the Opposition would give to any


action by the Government to resist the United States embargo? Is he aware, from the feelings expressed from both sides of the House, that it is felt widely that the action is not only economically foolish but commercially backward and politically maladroit in its effects? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take further action, if necessary, under the Protection of Trading Interests Act? Will he assure the British firms involved of the Government's fullest support at a legal level and of their intention to protect them against commercial repercussions? Will he assure the firms that that solid defence of their interests will involve other Western European countries?

Mr. Rees: I did not criticise the measures promulgated by the President in quite the same terms as those used by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) from the Opposition Front Bench, but that was the tenor of my remarks to the United States Administration. I assure the House that, depending on how the situation develops, we shall not be hesitant in activating the further provisions of the Protection of Trading Interests Act.

Copyright

Mr. Shersby: asked the Minister for Trade whether he has received recent representations from the record industry concerning the extent of copyright infringement resulting from home taping.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): British Phonographic Industry Ltd., which represents the United Kingdom record industry, has recently submitted its written response to the copyright Green Paper (Cmnd. 8302). This includes its latest estimate of the amount of home taping of music that takes place. It estimates that in 1981, 22 per cent. of the music that was recorded privately on to blank tape resulted in lost sales to the record industry, and from this it draws the conclusion that the industry lost sales with a total retail value of £305 million. Of course, these are only estimates. There is no way of knowing exactly how many sales are lost as a result of home taping.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern in the British record industry about infringement of copyright in sound recording is equal to the concern expressed by the British film industry about infringement of copyright in British films? Will my hon. Friend take urgent action to deal with this problem, as he has done already in supporting the amendment of the copyright law to stamp out video piracy? What consideration has his Department given to the possibility of a levy on the sale of blank tapes?

Mr. Sproat: A levy on blank tapes is one of the possibilities which have been put to us in all the responses which have come in following the Green Paper and which the Government currently are considering. I assure my hon. Friend that I take this matter as seriously as the video piracy business. Perhaps it is an appropriate moment for me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the splendid part that he played in getting that Bill through the House some 10 days ago.

Mr. John Fraser: Since it is more difficult to control home taping, would not a levy be the most equitable way of getting money to the holders of the copyright of records? As for video piracy, will the hon. Gentleman now

have discussions with the police and the copyright owners about the way in which the recent amendment to the law can be enforced more readily?

Mr. Sproat: On that latter point, discussions with the police are a matter for the Home Department, but I have no doubt that that Department followed our interesting debate and the hon. Gentleman's contribution to it the other day. As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about audio piracy and the idea of a levy on blank tape, that is one of the suggestions put forward in response to the Green Paper that the Government are considering.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is said—I do not know how much it goes on—that some people actually tape from the BBC the recordings of proceedings in the House in order that those who are on flexible rostering may hear them later? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that nothing will be done to interfere with this? Seriously, is it not difficult to stop people taking the odd copy on their own tapes? The practice is extremely widespread. Short of a home factory, I do not see what can be done to stop it.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend pinpoints with his customary accuracy one of the real difficulties that we face. I did not know that people were recording what was said in the House, but no doubt they find some contributions more valuable than others.

European Community

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister for Trade what trade developments he foresees between the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community member States in the remainder of 1982 and throughout 1983.

Mr. Peter Rees: I have no doubt that our fellow Community countries will continue to constitute overwhelmingly the largest market for British goods abroad, and I look forward with confidence to the further development of mutually beneficial trade across the Channel.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a generally very favourable picture of a build-up of United Kingdom visible manufactured and invisible exports is marred by certain disadvantages, notably in the insurance industry? Will he make energetic moves as soon as possible to take up with the Trade Ministers of the other EEC countries the possibility of breaking down the barriers in individual countries which prevent our insurance companies expanding their business in those countries?

Mr. Rees: I am greatly concerned about the lack of progress with the draft insurance directive, and I am also concerned with the total liberalisation of trade and services in the Community. This is one of the matters which I shall be discussing with the relevant Commissioner, Herr Narjes, tonight.

Mr. Edwin Wainright: Will the Minister take into account the lack of competitiveness of this country in the EEC and the fact that there is in the EEC a greater understanding between Governments, banks and the trade union movement about production? What do the Government intend to do to try to create greater co-operation between themselves, employers and the trade union movement, instead of combating and confronting the trade unions on every occasion?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman raises a question of enormous breadth. I am sure that the House is anxious to see that British industry should be as competitive as possible, and this means an input from many sources.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. and learned Friend raise at the Council of Ministers the possibility of considering those areas of trade where the Japanese are likely to make major infiltrations into European markets in the years ahead, so that Britain and Europe may be better prepared to deal with them than we have been in the past in certain technical and motor industries?

Mr. Rees: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it is not always easy to forecast with accuracy where this laser beam approach is likely to make impacts in the future. We have this matter under constant review. Many representations have been made on behalf of the European Community, and proceedings are under way under article XXIII of the GATT.

Exchange Rates

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister for Trade how many individuals and how many organisations have made representations to him opposing floating exchange rates.

Mr. Peter Rees: No recent formal representations have been received by my Department for or against floating exchange rates.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the British economy worked much better with a fixed exchange rate than with floating exchange rates? In view of the uncertainty caused by floating exchange rates for those engaged in international trade, does my hon. and learned Friend think that it would be a good idea if Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, so removing that uncertainty at least in our trade with the EEC?

Mr. Rees: I hesitate to say whether the British economy has done better or worse under a regime of floating exchange rates. Certainly I am prepared to acknowledge the contribution that the EMS has made to stability between the participating currencies and therefore the spin-off advantages for trade, although, as the recent currency realignments within the system have shown, that stability can sometimes be somewhat short-lived.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the recent reduction in inflation in this country is in part illusory because it is the result of the Government forcing up the exchange rate to levels which, if maintained, will result in the continuing decline of manufacturing industry? Irrespective of whether we join the EMS, what policy is his Department advocating to try to bring an air of reality to the Treasury?

Mr. Rees: I should like to think that perfect harmony obtained between every Government Department. I do not accept that the decline in inflation is illusory. It is solidly based and will, I hope, continue throughout the lifetime of this Administration and well beyond.

Mr. Hordern: Will my hon. and learned Friend say how uncertainty can be removed by our joining the EMS when we recall that the French franc has been devalued twice in the past six months?

Mr. Rees: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), fluctuations in exchange rates may present difficulties. It has proved difficult even inside the EMS always to contain these movements.

Mr. Woolmer: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that, as the The Times today says, there is a sinking feeling among Ministers that output is not recovering? Clearly the exchange rate is important for both our exporters and our importers. If the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend in the other place can take heart from a small increase in exports, should he not be concerned about the massive growth in imports? When will the hon. and learned Gentleman support steps to increase competitiveness through the exchange rate and lower interest rates as a result of sound economic policies, instead of the madness that the Government are foisting upon our manufacturers?

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more analytical, he would have noticed that the increase in imports was due largely to imports of capital goods and machinery, which suggests that British companies are concentrating on restocking and investment. No doubt that will be reflected in increased production and exports in due course.

Laker Airways

Mr. Dubs: asked the Minister for Trade if the Civil Aviation Authority has provided him with any assessment of the conclusions to be drawn about the collapse of Laker Airways.

Mr. Sproat: The events leading up to the collapse of Laker Airways are well known. They have been discussed in this House as well as in the media. I see no reason to call for any assessment by the authority.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not up to the Minister to make sure that the British public have better information about what actually happened? Is it not the responsibility of the authority to provide such an assessment to the Minister?

Mr. Sproat: No, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the offers by certain insurance companies to cover intending passengers in the event of airlines going out of business before they can utilise their tickets? Having, I hope, welcomed that development, does he agree that it will probably be easier to obtain cover when there is no likelihood of a company going out of business than otherwise? Will he therefore consider as an alternative the possibility of a surcharge on all scheduled airline tickets with a view to building up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of that long supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I had not noticed has the next question on the Order Paper, will forgo his supplementary on the next question.

Mr. Sproat: I am not attracted by the idea of a surcharge on airline tickets. Many people already think that tickets are too expensive. However, I certainly join my hon. Friend in the welcome that he gave in the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister reflect on the appalling complacency of the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)? Does he agree that it is now becoming apparent from the


events which immediately preceded the collapse of Laker Airways that for a substantial time Laker Airways was allowed to fly and to sell tickets to the public in circumstances which, under existing legislation, was wrong? Is it not important to establish whether that appalling lack of supervision was caused by the CAA or by the Minister? Is it not time for us to know where the responsibility lies?

Mr. Sproat: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. The Civil Aviation Authority acted exactly as it should have done. It monitored the affairs of Laker Airways. As long as the banks felt that there was a chance of patching things together to the benefit of the airline and the passengers, it was the duty of the CAA to continue as it did. I have no criticism whatever to make of the CAA in this matter.

Mr. Colvin: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the cost to the British Government, and, therefore, to the taxpayer, of the Laker collapse?

Mr. Sproat: I have made no such estimate. However, I should point out that the money that was owed by Laker Airways was owed by Laker Airways, not by a nationalised industry such as British Airways.

Travelling Public (Consumer Protection)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Minister for Trade if he will meet representatives of the travel agents organisations to discuss consumer protection of the travelling public.

Dr. Vaughan: I am willing, of course, to consider any points which the industry wishes to raise.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

Mr. McCrindle: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall put my supplementary question in one sentence. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as travel agents about the threat to the public arising from stolen airline tickets?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, we are very concerned at the small but growing problem of counterfeit tickets. It is not only criminal, but it erodes public confidence in the majority of bona fide travel organisations. I am considering what action can be taken.

Copyright

Mr. Alton: asked the Minister for Trade whether, in view of the level of audio and video piracy, he will seek to amend the Copyright Act 1956.

Mr. Sproat: Audio piracy is in fact very low in the United Kingdom. Industry figures put it at under 5 per cent. of the market, due to the effective application of the existing civil remedies under the Copyright Act 1956 by the record industry. However, the Government are very concerned at the growth of video piracy. Although the civil remedies can also be very effective against video piracy, as recent cases have shown, the Government are looking closely at the possibility of increasing the maximum penalties on the criminal side.

Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for that reply and the earlier replies that he gave on the Green Paper. Can he say how long it will be before he is likely to come to the House with recommendations to change the law?

Mr. Sproat: No, Sir, I cannot do that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be as soon as possible. As soon as the memorandum which we are awaiting from the European Commission is before us, we shall take matters forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend's assurances of discussions and consideration are welcome. Does he agree that it is essential that amendments to the Copyright Act should be made, or there will be dire consequences for the recording industry?

Mr. Sproat: Indeed, and, as I think I made clear in the House when I replied to the debate that was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) recently, we are well aware of that matter and not rule out any interim measures.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that waiting for Europe to do things has proved disastrous in many aspects of trade—for example, doorstep selling? If legislation is needed, will he confirm that we will legislate for our own best interests without waiting for Europe?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, Sir, if necessary.

Siberian Gas Pipeline

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for Trade whether he will make a statement about British trading prospects arising from the Siberian gas pipeline project.

Mr. Peter Rees: British companies have won contracts for the Siberian gas pipeline project totalling more than £200 million.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Government now take further action to help workers employed by firms such as the Scottish company, John Brown Engineering, which won more than £100 million worth of turbine contracts for the pipeline? As those orders are now jeopardised by the Reagan embargo, is it not time that the Prime Minister brought appropriate pressure to bear on President Reagan, who seems to be so obsessed with his hatred of the Soviet Union that he is willing to sacrifice the jobs of workers in Scotland and elsewhere?

Mr. Rees: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman regards as appropriate pressure, but we are, of course, concerned not only about John Brown but about all the companies that are likely to be affected by the two regulations that the President has promulgated. As I said in answers to earlier questions, we have activated part I of the Protection of Trading Interests Act, and we shall not be slow to activate subsequent parts if the situation develops in such a way that we feel that that will assist the companies concerned. As I told the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), we are acutely concerned about the employment consequences in his constituency and in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney).

Viscount Cranborne: Do the Government have a view about the desirability of the pipeline project, particularly in view of the great aid and comfort that it will give to the military capability of the Soviet Union?

Mr. Rees: I am not certain how much aid and comfort it will give to the military capability of the Soviet Union, but it will certainly assist various European countries to


diversify their supplies of gas. That is a matter of concern for them. Within our international obligations, we are glad that British companies have tendered successfully. That will, I believe, assist their profits and the job opportunities that they can create.

British Airways

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Minister for Trade if he has yet received the annual report of British Airways for 1981–82.

Mr. Sproat: No, Sir.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister desist from behind the scenes efforts to manipulate the accounts before they appear? Does he not realise that attempts to massage the accounts before they appear in order to make British Airways more saleable to a private buyer have not gone without note? It has been commented on in The Times during the past week. Does he accept that actions such as pushing British Airways into panic measures, which will leave the airline weak, whether it is private or public, does the airline no good at all?

Mr. Sproat: I cannot desist from something that I am not doing. I am not manipulating the accounts of British Airways. The accounts of British Airways are a matter for the board of British Airways. I congratulate Sir John King and his team at British Airways on doing a splendid job in making the airline more profitable and ready for privatisation next year.

Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome the vigorous steps that Sir John King and his board of directors are taking in difficult circumstances to put BA on a sound financial footing, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for serious concern that these accounts have been delayed for so long? That would not be acceptable in a publicly quoted company. Is there not also concern that some items which one would have expected to see in last year's accounts are apparently to appear in this year's accounts?

Mr. Sproat: The House will be well advised to wait for the accounts. There is nothing particularly unusual about the timing of the accounts. I expect to see them in the time scale that I gave to the House a couple of months ago.

Mr. John Smith: Surely the Minister cannot escape responsibility for this matter. If the accounts are deliberately manipulated, as is widely predicted will be the case, the Minister cannot stand back from that. Is it not clear that British Airways, under their present chairman, are trying to manipulate their accounts and are seeking to sack 7,000 workers merely to accommodate the Government's obsession with selling off the airline at the first available opportunity?

Mr. Sproat: Every time the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box he gets it wrong, and he has got it wrong again. British Airways are looking for another 7,000 redundancies because they want to be profitable and their productivity is well below that of other international airlines. I entirely support what Sir John King is doing in this matter.

Mr. Eggar: Since the Opposition are so interested in the financial results of British Airways, will my hon. Friend arrange for the publication of the Price Waterhouse report into the efficiency of British Airways?

Mr. Sproat: The Price Waterhouse report was commissioned by British Airways, and it is entirely for British Airways whether they publish the report.

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister regard the adventures of Laker Airways as a strong argument for privatising British Airways?

Mr. Sproat: I regard the possibility of privatising British Airways as a chance to get off the backs of taxpayers the endless subsidies, guarantees and support that British Airways have enjoyed for many years. Our firm expectation is that British Airways will be placed in the private sector next year to the gratification of British Airways staff, shareholders and passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Developing Countries

M. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional steps he expects to take in respect of official assistance to developing countries, following agreements reached at the Versailles summit.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Our aid policies are already consistent with the Versailles declaration.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What new emphasis does the Minister propose to give to the policies designed to promote energy and food development in the Third world? Will he contemplate increasing overseas development assistance to meet the 0·7 per cent. target set by the United Nations 10 years ago?

Mr. Marten: No initiative on energy was proposed at the Versailles summit, and we have no further proposals to make. The 0·7 per cent. target was not specifically mentioned at Versailles, but we take the same view as the previous Administration—that we shall reach it as soon as our economy can justify it.

Mr. McElhone: In order that we may make a more objective assessment of the value of the Versailles, Cancun and other summits, will the Minister answer the question that he refused to answer on 7 July? Will he confirm or deny that the PESC allocations from his Department are going to the Ministry of Defence or to the Foreign Office to pay for the Falklands exercise?

Mr. Marten: That question did not arise at the Versailles summit. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a question on the matter, I shall answer it.

New Commonwealth and Pakistan

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid currently granted to countries of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan; and what is the form of such aid.

Mr. Neil Marten: In 1981 we disbursed £444 million of official bilateral aid to countries in the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. Of this total, £336 million was in the form of financial aid and £108 million in the form of technical co-operation.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether a


portion of this aid could be devoted to immigrants who take advantage of the Government's voluntary repatriation scheme to help them to resettle when they go back to India, Pakistan and other countries of the New Commonwealth?

Mr. Marten: I do not think that that would be a proper use of the aid funds that have been voted by Parliament for developing countries.

Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister agree that it is a pity that when Britain entered the Common Market 10 years ago such countries were discriminated against in the entry negotiations by being excluded from the benefits, such as they are, of the Lomé convention? Would it not be a great help to those countries if they could be brought within that system?

Mr. Marten: Many Commonwealth countries are within the Lomé convention, although some are outside. Within the Community, we have tried to do our best to help those countries outside the Lomé convention.

Mr. Alton: Will the Minister take no notice of those of his hon. Friends who constantly carp about the Indian and Pakistan communities in Britain and fervently try to persuade the House that there is a need to repatriate them? What economic factors must apply for the 0·7 per cent. to be given to such countries?

Mr. Marten: I cannot say that I shall not take notice of what hon. Members say. I take notice of what every hon. Member says, although I may not agree with many of them. I do not agree with many of the points made from the Opposition Front Bench.
With regard to the 0·7 per cent. target, when growth has been established sufficiently, and when the economy is strong enough, we hope to raise the percentage of aid, which is above the average of OECD countries now.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is United Kingdom aid to Pakistan being concentrated on Baluchistan?

Mr. Marten: Some of it is going there. Some is also going to help the refugees from occupied Afghanistan.

India

Mr. Sever: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount is provided by his Department towards the agricultural programme costs in India.

Mr. Neil Marten: In 1981–82 our bilateral assistance to India for projects related to agriculture, including fertiliser production, totalled £64·5 million. The United Kingdom is also a major contributor to multilateral organisations which assist India in this field.

Mr. Sever: I have noted the success of the Festival of India, in which the Minister has participated, which is currently being promoted in England. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that few people are rejoicing in a festive mood in India's larger towns and smaller villages, because of the chronic starvation that they face day in, day out? Henceforward, will he take every opportunity not only to resist the suggestions of hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), but to make sure that the aid programme is extended so that we honour our real commitment to the starving millions?

Mr. Marten: The Indian agricultural sector is very successful. Indeed, it had a grain surplus and grain exports. It is a matter of distribution and administration to cope with starvation in any particular area.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain still gives more bilateral aid to India than any other country, including the United States of America?

Mr. Martin: Yes, Sir, that is true. We plan to exceed the 1981–82 figure both this year and in the following financial year. Our aid to India is largely in grant form, whereas much of the aid from other countries is in loan form.

Overseas Students Trust

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet finalised the response of his Department to the Overseas Students Trust.

Mr. Neil Marten: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Although the report does not go far enough, does the Minister accept that it would at least be a step in the right direction if we were to abolish the increased fees for students from British dependent territories? For example, is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Prime Minister and other Ministers to keep telling us that the Falkland Islanders are British and yet to charge their students up to 12 times the fees of British students?

Mr. Marten: We shall consider such factors when we consider the report.

Mr. Rhodes James: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the entire study was commissioned by British industry and business and the CBI, which were deeply concerned about the effects on British trade and influence abroad of the decisions made by the Labour Government. Will he tell the House when the Government's view on the report will be given?

Mr. Marten: I recognise the source of the money for the study, but many of the people who carried out the study will have experience much wider than in business. The timing of the report is under consideration. There are one or two quite difficult problems. I hope that we shall be able to say something about it when Parliament reassembles after the Summer Recess.

Jamaica and Windward and Leeward Islands

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider further assistance to the Governments of Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward Islands.

Mr. Neil Marten: A new loan of £2·5 million has been agreed for Jamaica for 1982–83. We have recently provided £500,000 for the provision of fertiliser and other inputs primarily directed to help small banana growers in the Windward Islands. By the end of 1982 more than £6 million of British aid will have been provided in support of a five-year Windward Islands banana development programme.

Mr. Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and helpful reply. Will he add to the package


of finance an expression of recognition of the fact that it is necessary to increase management control in Jamaica and on the Leeward and Windward Islands, especially in the banana industry? Can he help in any way?

Mr. Marten: Yes. We are helping in the management of the banana industry, and we have sent representatives to help the islands in that respect.

Commander Trestrail

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement. Commander Trestrail, the Queen's police officer, has confessed to having a homosexual relationship over a number of years with a male prostitute. He has resigned from the Metropolitan Police.
I have thought it right to report this to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I shall make a further announcement in the course of my statement on Wednesday.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I thank the Home Secretary for reporting these facts to the House at the first opportunity. I can imagine the difficulties involved in making such a statement, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right to give the House his authoritive account of these events rather than allow the story to be told by leaks, half-truths and innuendo. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to await the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Wednesday before taking up wider security matters at the Palace.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have made it clear throughout that it is my duty to the House to report everything to it at the earliest possible opportunity that I can find. This I have done on every occasion, and this I will continue to do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side of the House on this limited statement. When I have called those four hon. Members, we shall move on to the next statement.

Mr. George Cunningham: Are we to assume that this information was not known to the Security Service till now? Does that mean that no positive vetting was carried out on the commander, or that there was a positive vetting which failed to reveal these facts?

Mr. Whitelaw: He was positively vetted.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will this aspect of security lapses surrounding the Queen's security be covered by the Dellow report, bearing in mind that some reports say that it is already in the hands of those in authority?

Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters will be covered by my statement on Wednesday, which will include the Dellow report and every other matter that comes before me.

Mr. J. Grimond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Can he tell us what the functions of the Queen's police officer are and whether these incidents came to light only when the inquiries into the breach of security at the Palace were taking place, or were they separate from that?

Mr. Whitelaw: They were separate from that. The duties of the Queen's police officer are to protect the Queen outside the Palace and on all her outside visits.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how long these facts have been known to him?

Mr. Whitelaw: Since 9.15 am.

Telecommunications Policy

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of telecommunications in Britain.
It is the Government's aim to promote consumer choice. Wherever possible, we want industrial and commercial decisions to be determined by the market and not by the State. We believe that consumer choice and the disciplines of the market lead to more stable prices, improved efficiency and a higher quality of service.
Since the British Telecommunications Act 1981 received the Royal Assent less than a year ago, some progress has been made in breaking the State monopoly in telecommunications. I have licensed the Mercury consortium to provide a new telecommunications network in competition with BT. I intend shortly to issue a general licence permitting all bona fide value added network service operators to use the BT and Mercury networks. The way is now opening for the private sector to sell telephone apparatus direct to the public. Liberalisation of telecommunications has started and we intend to see it through.
For BT, the prospect of competition and the advent of new technology are now stimulating it to provide a wider range of competitive services. I pay tribute to the way in which Sir George Jefferson and his board are transforming what was not so long ago a Government Department into a commercially oriented business. We now want to take the next step.
As a nationalised industry, BT does not have direct access to financial markets. Its borrowing is controlled by the Government and counts against the PSBR. To bring inflation under control these borrowings have, inevitably, to be subject to strict limits. But external finance is only part of the picture. In the past, monopoly power has allowed BT to raise prices to finance investment without doing all that might be done to increase efficiency.
Around 90 per cent. of BT's investment programme, about £2,200 million this year, has been self-financed. By "self-financed", I mean, of course "customer financed". BT's charges to customers not only cover current running costs but are also paying for 90 per cent. of new investment. As a result, charges have risen steeply while investment is still not enough. Unless something is done radically to change the capital structure and ownership of BT and to provide a direct spur to efficiency, higher investment could mean still higher charges for the customer. The Government, BT and the general public would find that unacceptable. We need to free BT from traditional forms of Government control.
We will therefore take the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation which, while keeping BT as a single enterprise, will enable it to be converted into a Companies Act company, "British Telecommunications plc". The legislation will allow the sale of shares in that company to the public. It is our intention, after the next election, to offer up to 51 per cent. of the shares on the market in one or more tranches.
Once half of the shares have been sold, the Government will give up control over the commercial decisions of BT plc. BT plc will be outside the public sector; its borrowing will cease to be subject to Exchequer control, and it will

look to its shareholders and the markets for its external financing. It will be for the board of the company to decide when and how much to borrow, taking account of internal factors and market conditions in the same way as any other private sector company. This will mean not only a greater flexibility for BT and less pressure on consumers and taxpayers, but that BT will be subject to proper market disciplines. BT will be in a position to provide better services which are more responsible to customer needs like those provided by the privately-owned telephone companies in the United States.
BT plc will, nevertheless, dominate the British market for telecommunications for some years yet. The Government consider, therefore, that there will be a need for regulatory arrangements for the industry to balance the interests of those supplying telecommunications services, their customers, their competitors, their employees, their investors and their suppliers. The legislation will reform the arrangements for licensing telecommunications so as to end BT's exclusive privilege and its role in licensing. Instead, there will be a new Office of Telecommunications, modelled on the Office of Fair Trading, under a director general appointed by me. He will have powers similar to those of the Director General of Fair Trading. He will operate with the same degree of independence from Government. It will be his job to ensure fair competition and fair prices.
The legislation will contain provisions to safeguard existing pension obligations. There will also be special provisions to ensure that those employed in BT can acquire shares in the company.
Finally, the legislation will reform the Telegraph Acts which were passed in the last century. We need to recast the law to make it relevant to the technology of today and tomorrow. I shall be issuing a consultative document on this aspect shortly.
Because these proposals are far-reaching and will affect many people, I am today publishing this statement, with some additional background information, in the form of a White Paper.
These proposals follow naturally from the liberalising measures passed by the House last year. It would make no sense to stop half way. If those who work in telecommunications are to provide the range and quality of service which modern technology now permits, and if they are to do so in competition with each other, it cannot be right that BT should remain subject to the web of Government interference and controls which are the inevitable lot of an industry which enjoys the privilege of Exchequer finance.
The quality of the service which any enterprise provides depends upon the skills, energy, and leadership of the people who work in it. We want to provide those people with the environment—market, financial, legal and structural—which will free them to give of their best. In the view of the Government, that is what the proposed legislation will do. I look forward to its early introduction.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We have just heard a depressing statement. It is not in the interests of British industry. Why have the Government decided to take such a step, which is harmful to the national network, when British Telecommunications has improved productivity and service to the customer and has developed new technology? Does the Minister not agree that these proposals will destroy the morale of both management and


employees? What effect will the proposals have on the provision and cost of services for people living outside the conurbation areas, and pensioners and those who need a telephone for health and security reasons? What steps will the Minister take to protect people in rural areas? What will be the cost to them?
What protection will be given to the pension rights of employees? What proposals will the Government make to protect both pensions and employment? How will the Government price the sale of the shares? What criteria can those shares be matched against? What guarantee will there be that there will not be a further Amersham International scandal? Why does the Minister not free, if he talks about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is an important statement, and it was a long one. I have a right to ask these questions. Why does the Secretary of State not free British Telecommunications from the cash limits and allow it to raise capital, as it could as a public corporation?
This will be an election issue, as the proposals will not come to fruition until after the general election. The Opposition will make this a general election issue. We shall fight to maintain a national network under public control, under British Telecommunications.

Mr. Jenkin: I did not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome my statement with open arms, but we are content to let the electorate decide. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the extent to which this proposal will be in the interests of customers. This is one of the few industries which now has strong growth potential both in the network provision and in the provision of equipment and services to attach to the network.
The criticism has been made by the board, by the unions and by a Select Committee of the House that British Telecommunications has had to constrain its investment plans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under the Government's policy."]—because of the extent to which it is limited in drawing from the Exchequer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that investment in British Telecommunications today is no higher than in 1975–76. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it declined in real terms under the Labour Government—he was a member of that Government—and that it has increased in real terms under the present Administration. However, it is still constrained. The investment needs of British Telecommunications are great. It is right that it should have access to the market.
Access for subscribers in the rural areas will be a matter for the licence that I shall issue to British Telecommunications, when the Bill has been passed. It is the Government's firm intention that anyone who can obtain a telephone under the present arrangements should be able to obtain a telephone under the new arrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about pensions. The Bill will safeguard British Telecommunications' existing pension obligations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the pension commitments exist under a funded pension scheme backed by the Post Office pension fund. The assets are in the hands of independent trustees. They will not be touched by a sale of shares in British Telecommunications.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about jobs. The telecommunications market, freed from British Telecommunications' control, and British Telecommunications, freed from Government constraints, will be a new expansionary force in the market. British

Telecommunications is already leading the information technology revolution in the United Kingdom. It could become a major world force.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the price of shares. As I am sure he will, recognise, it is too soon to start making guesses about that. He asked why we do not just free British Telecommunications from the existing cash limits. As cash limits on nationalised industries were the invention of the Labour Government—of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member—and were applied so strictly that investment in telecommunications went down in real terms in every year that that Government were in office, that criticism comes ill from the right hon. Gentleman's mouth. We intend to free British Telecommunications from that constraint.

Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recently published results of Cable and Wireless bode well for the arrangements that he is making for British Telecommunications?

Mr. Jenkin: Cable and Wireless has shown that there are great opportunities in this market. I welcome the appointment of Sir Michael Edwardes as chairman of the Mercury Consortium, because I am sure that he will bring a welcome dynamism to that major competitor, the first competing telecommunications network in the world.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept that the members of the Post Office Engineering Union, which I represent, will be horrified at today's statement? Does he further accept that, given his figures of 90 per cent. self-financing, he is proposing to sell the assets built up by the telecommunications customer over the years and that that will not be reflected in the service that people, particularly in the rural areas, will be given?
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the problem which he and his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have today, which is that British Telecommunications maintains services within the most sensitive installations in the country? How can he protect those services from foreign capital introducing its own priorities to the business?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that many employees of British Telecommunications will study the proposals carefully and will not be influenced too much by political statements by the Labour Party. I think that they will recognise that there is a great deal for them in this proposal. They have criticised the method of financing investment in British Telecommunications. They have had to face the anger of subscribers, who are currently having to finance about 90 per cent. of the investment in British Telecommunications. They have been acutely aware of the constraints which the present system imposes on investment. No one has been firmer in such criticisms of the existing procedures. We are proposing to change all that.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that matters of security and so on are well in the forefront of the Government's mind. I expect that, as with the British Telecommunications Act 1981, there will be an opportunity during the passage of the Bill for those matters to be debated on the Floor of the House. I have given the House the assurance that the licence will impose on British Telecommunications the same obligation to maintain communications to rural


subscribers. That is absolutely clear. The Government have no intention of abandoning the rural areas. On the contrary, we believe that, as with all subscribers, they will get a better service under a company that is answerable to the disciplines of the market.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to allow the public to invest in British Telecom will free it from the shackles of Treasury control, so that in future the only control over investment will be whether the project is viable? That is a better way of operating for the workers and for the consumers.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disciplines of the market, coupled with the terms of the licence and the regulatory system that we intend to introduce, will give the customer an extremely good service.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the financial rip-off envisaged in his statement will create acute anxiety among the staffs of the Post Office and British Telecom? Can the Secretary of State give a catergoric assurance that the annual financial contribution by British Telecom to the Post Office superannuation fund will be honoured by any private company that is involved?

Mr. Jenkin: I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman is right about the acute anxiety of those concerned. Many people working in British Telecom will look forward to the freedom from the mesh of Government control that has surrounded the industry ever since its foundation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill will safeguard existing pension rights of British Telecom employees. There will be no welshing on that obligation.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, British Telecom is carrying the whole of the pre-1969 pension contribution obligations and that is a matter which—[Interruption]. If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I might be able to offer him some comfort. We shall consider whether part of the proceeds of sale of some of the shares in British Telecom can be used to relieve British Telecom of that continuing obligation and so secure the pension rights without the continuing outflow of tens of millions of pounds. That is for consideration, and no undertaking can yet be given. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that the Government have no intention of welshing on the pension obligations.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the denationalisation of this section of industry will be widely welcomed in all parts of the country? Will he confirm that under the new set-up the British taxpayer will have no liability for index-linked pensions in British Telecom?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot add to what I have said about existing pension obligations. It will be for the new company to consider the interests of its employees when assessing pension obligations. The company will obviously wish to reach an amicable agreement with its employees.

Mr. John Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement about the pre-1969 pensions being a matter for consideration will be viewed with horror and concern by the staff? The British Telecom staff will regard his proposals as a change for the worse which can bring only uncertainty into their pensions and job security, which they regard so highly.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept the blame, but the hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood me. My pledge on honouring existing pension obligations is unqualified. The point that I make is that we shall consider whether part of the proceeds of sale might be used to fund the pre-1969 obligation, at least as far as the Post Office is concerned, and relieve British Telecom's customers of the continuing need to contribute towards that pension right. I must make it clear that I am giving no undertaking that that will prove possible, but it will be considered, and it might prove a better way to deal with the pre-1969 pension obligation than the existing arrangements.

Mr. David Alton: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about increased employee participation. Does he agree that just like increased investment, it could be achieved without denationalisation of the industry? As the matter was raised less than a year ago, why was the House not informed earlier that following the introduction of competition, denationalisation would be the next step?

Mr. Jenkin: I took no part in those proceedings. We cannot stop half way. Most Members welcome the prospect of stronger competition in the provision of telecommunication services for people and businesses. It does not make sense for British Telecom to enter that competition while being subject to the mesh of Government control that inevitably surrounds a nationalised industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government's intention to make it possible for British Telecom employees to acquire shares in the company so that they may own part of the company for which they work. That will be welcomed by many employees.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side of the House, and then we shall move on.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement that British Telecom's investment programme will no longer be constrained by the public sector borrowing requirement and that it will be able to obtain its funds from the capital market will be widely welcomed? However, will my right hon. Friend say why, as the general election will not occur for almost two years, the proposals cannot be brought forward sooner?

Mr. Jenkin: I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend's views. However, he must recognise that the Bill could not be introduced until the next Session. From the reaction of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I expect there will be prolonged debates on the detailed provisions of the Bill and that it might not receive Royal Assent until well into 1983. My hon. Friend will recognise that, by any standards, even if it is done in tranches, the shares issue will be a big one, and we need


to make sure that the market is ready to receive it. There could be difficulties about doing that during the period immediately preceding a general election.
There is also a reassurance here to the staff and people generally concerned with the industry. This is a matter on which the British public will wish to express an opinion at the general election. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have plans to hasten these proposals forward immediately after the general election.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about users outside major conurbations? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would take that into consideration when issuing a licence. We are concerned not only with the provision of a service but with its cost to people who live outside the major conurbations. We suspect that it will be much higher than at present.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about such matters, and I respect that. He will know that the network investment has already been made and paid for by the generality of consumers. For British Telecom to withdraw from rural services or impose higher charges would be to devalue its own network, and that would not he a realistic step.
Technological advances are widening the opportunities for rural communities. Advances in satellites, microwaves, and cellular radio are reducing the cost of reaching the remoter rural areas. British Telecom already has higher charges for connection in rural areas—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that—and changing the ownership of British Telecom will not alter that.

Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed throughout the country by consumers, who will see in it greater freedom of choice and an opportunity for a vastly improved service? Will he accept that those who have a genuine long-term interest in employment in the industry will also welcome the statement? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in freeing the industry, he will make sure that telephone companies will be obliged to provide itemised telephone bills to the consumer?

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the Bill will introduce a better deal for the customer. I am surprised at the way in which the Opposition have reacted. They are standing up, not for the customer, but for the discredited system of monopoly State industry. I believe that a British Telecom that is more answerable to the market, and whose shareholders are the consumers, will very much have regard to my hon. Friend's point about bills, but that sort of detail will be a matter for the board of the new company.

Mr. Michael English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenor of our questioning arises from the fact that his Department ordered that the White Paper, due for publication at 2.30, should not be published until after he had sat down, thus enabling him not to answer questions properly and not helping the House of Commons, which he is supposed to serve? Has he intentionally made his announcement about liberalisation in advance of selling the shares? By doing so he has reduced the monopoly value of the prospective sale of shares—that no doubt cheapens them for the

purchaser—and reduced the contribution to the PSBR. What is his estimate of the reduction in the sale value that his announcement has made?

Mr. Jenkin: I gave instructions that the White Paper should be issued as soon as I had sat down, for the reason which I hope the hon. Gentleman will applaud. The White Paper reproduces my statement, and so it would have been wrong had the White Paper been published before I made my statement to the House.
Liberalisation and the private ownership of 51 per cent. of BT are complementary sides of the same policy. We want to open services to competition and to make BT more responsive to market forces. These things must go hand in hand. The hon. Gentleman is right. People who invest in a competitive BT will be aware of the kind of market in which they are investing, just as they invest in the shares of any other company that is operating in a competitive environment. The one difference here—and this will be for debate on the Bill—is the way in which the licence and regulatory systems will operate. That will be of major importance to investors in this company.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's announcement, which I believe will offer telecommunications to more members of the public at a vastly cheaper price than people are experiencing at present. What effect will his statement have on the franchise allocation of cable television? I ask that because, as British Telecom is the carrier of these cable television systems, it will produce a source of revenue at no extra cost to BT.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The Government have not yet made any decisions on the expansion of cable networks. Since the report of the information technology advisory panel was published, we have been studying the issues involved. As my hon. Friend knows, important broadcasting issues have been referred to the committee under Lord Hunt of Tanworth, which is due to report by 30 September.
I believe that there is a wide range of options for BT's participation in the development of cable networks in this country, from going through the BT switching service to using wayleads and ducts. Under the arrangements that we have yet to consider in detail and announce, it will be for BT to make partnership arrangements with the cable companies which may be different in different parts of the country. At this stage I do riot think that we can be more definite than that. I see a distinct role for BT in the cable revolution, but it is too soon to say precisely how that might be carried out.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when this matter was last debated in the House, when the Post Office was separated from BT, Labour Members warned that the Government's intention was to keep the Post Office in the public sector, because it was labour-intensive, but in due time to sell off the highly profitable telecommunications sector. Is it riot impertinent of the Government to proceed in this way in the lifetime of the same Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give the public an opportunity to keep this highly profitable sector of British industry under British ownership? What guarantee can he give that it will not be sold to foreign investors?

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the British public believe that efficient and well-known


private sector concerns such as Marks and Spencer would do better if owned by the State, they may well vote to retain BT as a nationalised industry. My guess is that most people will see that they will get a better deal from a BT that is a private corporation and is answerable to the market, and that they will vote accordingly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our intention is that the memorandum and articles of association of BT will contain provisions to prevent any undesirable change of ownership.

Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this far-reaching and exciting step in telecommunications. In view of the enormous size of the issue, will he consider issuing shares on a preferential basis, not only to the work force but to each telephone subscriber, so that all users can have a continuing interest in the success of BT, not just through higher bills, but through ownership and higher dividends?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. At present, no one feels that he owns BT. That is one of the major disadvantages of the Morrisonian system of the statutory public corporation. It will be very much in the Government's mind to provide the widest opportunity for small investors to invest in the service of which they are customers and to recognise the community of interest that exists between those who invest in a concern and those who are its customers, so as to ensure the best possible service.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the proposed timing of the change that he has announced will make BT a political football, which will cause great uncertainty and do great damage to this important sector of British industry? Will he reconsider the timetable, put this as a proposition at the next general election and not act until all the liberalisation measures have been brought into effect?

Mr. Jenkin: The country and BT will have the advantage of having had advance discussion of these matters so that the issues can be properly set out and decided by the electorate before any public issue takes place. The Government are convinced that there are great benefits to be gained—benefits for BT in being given its financial freedom; benefits for employees in having the opportunity to take shares and diversify job opportunities; benefits for customers in having a more market-sensitive organisation serving them; benefits for the taxpayer in a lower PSBR; and benefits for industry in freedom from regulation by BT. It is not a moment too soon to start down that road.

Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what he said about pensions? As I think he will agree, speculation on pensions is a sensitive issue, and in this case we are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds. I believe that BT invests £80 million a year. That is bound to have an effect on shareholders and the sale of shares. We shall create problems and dismay in the industry if we mix the current situation and the pre-1969 situation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to clarify that matter.

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that there has not been confusion, because my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made the position abundantly clear. Anxiety was expressed about the continuation of the pre-1969 pension obligations contained in the British Telecommunications Act 1981. I have said that there will be no welshing on that obligation. The Bill will safeguard existing pension interests. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman holds me to that. The future obligations of BT will be a matter for the board of that company and for negotiation between the management and employees of BT. I do not want to tie their hands, but existing pension obligations will be honoured. I give that pledge.

National Health Service (Dispute)

Mr. Reg Race: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the 1,000,000 Health Service staff who will be undertaking industrial action of a selective character".
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, during the next three days workers in the National Health Service will be in dispute with the Government. The reason I request the debate urgently is that we must discuss this important matter before the Summer Recess. It is a specific request because the Government have refused a new pay offer to increase their miserable offer to the NHS workers. It is important because there are more than 1,000,000 employees in the National Health Service—the largest collective bargaining group in Britain—who are doing some of the lowest paid, dirtiest and most important jobs in society. It is crucial that we get their pay right.
The matter is important because the workers have been treated badly. The 6 per cent. pay offer to some workers will produce small increases. The 4 per cent. increase to the Secretary of State will produce a cash increase of £27·98 a week. That compares with an increase of £3·54 a week before stoppages to an NHS domestic.
The matter is important because we have had no debate in Government time on this issue and because we wish an opportunity to discuss the Government's political priorities. Why should the Government be prepared to spend huge, undisclosed sums on the Falklands crisis by sending a task force there, but refuse to make a decent and respectable pay offer to end the low pay of NHS workers? For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will give my application serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the 1,000,000 Health Service staff who will be undertaking industrial action of a selective character".
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, and the House is aware that he has brought our attention to a grievous matter. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9, until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal when a subject of such importance is to be raised in the House for the Minister concerned at least to have the courtesy to be present?

Mr. Speaker: I do not suppose that the Minister knew about it. The application was made privately to me and I kept it to myself until now.

Northern Ireland Bill

Mr. James Molyneaux: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the allegation of the Irish Foreign Minister that the Northern Ireland Bill, now before Parliament, breaks the spirit and the letter of the arrangement between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government.
Last Friday in the Dail the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic stated that the provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill break the spirit and letter of arrangements between the two Governments. As the existence of any such arrangements has been denied in the House by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Bill is before another place tomorrow, I submit that an opportunity must be urgently provided for the Secretary of State to describe in what respects the provisions of the Bill are alleged to contravene the arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
the allegation of the Irish Foreign Minister that the Northern Ireland Bill, now before Parliament, breaks the spirit and the letter of the arrangement between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government.
The House will appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to an important matter, but the House knows that, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions.

Ordered,
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982 No. 907) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That, the Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 894) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, Motions Nos. 3 to 12 on the Order Paper may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and that when proceedings on the first Motion have been disposed of or, if any amendments have been selected to that Motion, when the first such amendment has been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions and of any amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. David Stoddart: I am rather puzzled that the motion has been tabled by the Government. It means that we shall consider together 10 separate items of business with item 3, Consideration of Estimates. Presumably that is because they are all procedural items, but the items are diverse and range from Consideration of Estimates, to Supply and Ways and Means, Liaison Committee, Periodic Adjournments, Consolidated Fund Bills, and Opposition Days. We cannot have a reasonable and ordered debate on subjects so diverse, especially after 10 o'clock. Indeed, it may be much later than 10 o'clock if the consolidation measure takes longer than some of us would expect.
It is inconsiderate that the House should be called upon to debate such a range of issues on one motion, when so many amendments have been put down. It is insulting to expect so many matters relating to the procedures of the House to be debated so late and on one motion. We are not short of time, and there is enough time to debate properly such important motions for the protection of Back-Bench Members and the Opposition.
I hope that the Leader of the House, bearing in mind what I say and what many other hon. Members believe, will reconsider the matter and withdraw the motion so that we can have a proper debate today, or will withdraw nine of the motions so that we debate only the first item tonight. The House may then be able to do its job properly and discuss at proper length the important subjects on the Order Paper.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replies, perhaps he would consider that motion No. 6 proposes a serious abridgement of private Members' rights, of which you, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian, and for which my right hon. Friend has great consideration. To limit the debate on such motions to one and a half hours is perhaps the largest infringement of private Members' rights that has been proposed for a long time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I do not like the business motion, as it is an attempt by the Government to get their business through the House at their convenience. It is proposed that the debate will start fairly late, after the debate on the Royal Navy and the consolidation measure. The debate will start after 10 o'clock, and there is a business motion to allow the consolidation item to be dealt with, though opposed, until any hour.
I wish to make it quite clear that I do not intend to prolong the proceedings, but many hon. Members are interested in the motions, not least for the very point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Adjournment debates are prized by many Back Benchers as an opportunity to raise important issues. There are virtually no other means open to them of doing that.
As interest is generated and time passes, the Government become apprehensive about losing time for their business on the following day. The Government could obtain a closure on the first item and, having passed the business motion, the House would be obliged to consider all of the other motions forthwith. There would be no more time for debate, because if the closure were agreed to by the Chair on the usual basis—three or four hours, with perhaps more latitude because of the wide range and scope of the motions—by virtue of the business motion every other item would have to be considered forthwith.
That is not a good system, as many changes are involved. Moreover, it puts the weight of argument on a purely procedural matter on the Government's side, as they are able to move the closure in the knowledge that their business is finished. If, on the other hand, there is genuine argument—I expect that there will be—about the validity of some of the proposals, the Government may see sense and make a reasonable compromise. If the business motion is passed they will not have to do that. That is why I do not like the motion.
Many of the items are important. The first is extremely important. The number of days to debate the Estimates should be extended, but it is not the only important issue. The power of the Liaison Committee is highly contentious, and motion No. 6 is important. The issues are important to Back Benchers and, therefore, they should be left to the good sense of the House.
I expect that Back Benchers do not want to spread the debate out unnecessarily, but they are worried about their rights. One must make use of the opportunities to raise issues. To see those opportunities curtailed is a source of anxiety to Back Benchers. The matter should be left to take its course. The business motion is not necessary. The matter should be left to the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider the motion. If he is not prepared to do so, I hope that the House will defeat it.
Many hon. Members were worried when they discovered last Thursday that the debate on the procedures of the House had been set down for 10 o'clock. That is not the best time for careful consideration of 10 motions. Many of us were aware that there were likely to be many amendments as well. We have now discovered that not only have the Government decided that the matter should be debated at an inconvenient time, which is not conducive to good debate, but that all 10 issues have been put together so that they must be discussed and voted upon together. That is very unsatisfactory.
The 10 motions are in many ways distinct. They are linked because they all relate to procedures of the House, but the issues that they cover remain separate. It would be far better to debate each separately. Not only are there 10 motions, but eight amendments have been selected and put into five groups. That suggests that there are five distinct areas for debate, yet the Leader of the House is asking us to debate them together. If debate in the House is to mean anything hon. Members should have a chance to address themselves to the same issue at one time. If one must deal with 10 issues in one speech, one has little chance of dealing with all of them adequately.
Back Benchers must be worried by the fact that we are being asked to consider not only the procedure for dealing with Estimates, but with Motion No. 6, Periodic Adjournments, which may receive less attention, although it is a major infringement of Back Benchers' rights, and motions on Consolidated Fund Bills, Supply and Ways and Means, Selection of Amendments, and Opposition Days on Fridays. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies that are a long way from London will have much to say about the allocation of time on Fridays. It will be difficult to get answers to all those matters if they are lumped together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned the Government's ability to obtain a closure. I hope that the Leader of the House will give a categoric assurance that on an important issue such as this—10 motions and eight amendments in five groups are involved—he will not dream of enforcing a closure until every Back Bench Member has had an opportunity to express his view.
Far better than that, I hope that the Leader of the House will say that he will withdraw the motion, so that the first item can be debated at 10 o'clock tonight—I am sure that most hon. Members would like the debate to be over by a reasonable time—and that, if there is not sufficient time to debate all 10 motions, they will be dealt with on other nights.
If the business motion is passed, it will be impossible to space out the 10 debates, irrespective of all representations to the Government. They will all have to take place at once. There will be Divisions on the 10 motions and the possibility of Divisions on the eight amendments—18 Divisions at the end of the debate, in which the issues will have been confused. I beg the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion. If he will not do that, I beg the House to defeat it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): This has been a short but, I think, helpful debate. I wish to comment, first, on the remarks of my hon. Friend for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) before dealing with the Opposition speeches. Clearly I cannot anticipate the course of the debate, but my hon. Friend will see from the Order Paper that on the subject of Periodic Adjournments an amendment to the Government motion has been put down by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and others. My hon. Friend may be delighted to find that the superior wisdom of the right hon. Member for Deptford has triumphed over my own modest considerations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a carve-up.

Mr. Biffen: It is a carve-up in which the bulk of the spoils are carried off by the right hon. Member for Deptford. I thought that that might at least merit a cheer.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister not appreciate that much of the concern relates to the rights of Back Benchers, as opposed to those of Front Benchers? Any time limit is a curtailment of the rights of Back Benchers. That is one of the issues that we shall wish to emphasise.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and others have put down an amendment in the same direction as that of the right hon. Member for Deptford. I shall be

accepting the spirit of that amendment, too, but it is not, and cannot be, the purpose of my remarks now to anticipate the course of that debate.
On the objections raised by the troika represented by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), there is nothing extraordinary about the form that has been chosen for this evening's debate in which a whole range of subjects of a procedural character are to be considered in one and the same debate. The Select Committee report was a totality covering all these topics and it was presented to the House as one report. The House debated all those recommendations in one debate in February. Today the House has the opportunity to consider them further in the light of motions inviting the implementation in part or in whole of the Select Committee report.
Of course a number of important and related issues are covered. That is why the business motion makes the debate open-ended. We do no service to the importance of the issue if we believe that we can approach the problems of procedural reform item by item on separate occasions. That would be a charter for every hon. Member who wished to impede any procedural reform.
On that basis, I recommend that the House should now endorse the motion.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 99.

Division No. 278]
[4.30 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
English, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Ancram, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gorst, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Peter Portsm th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hannam, John


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Browne, John (Winchester)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hordern, Peter


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colvin, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Costain, Sir Albert
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Mrs Jill


Crouch, David
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lee, John


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stainton, Keith


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Molyneaux, James
Stanley, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stokes, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Donald


Nott, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Onslow, Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, John


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Roper, John



Rossi, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Ian Lang and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Tristran Garel-Jones


NOES


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Carmichael, Neil


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cook, Robin F.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)





Deakins, Eric
Palmer, Arthur


Dixon, Donald
Parker, John


Dobson, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Dubs, Alfred
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pitt, William Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Race, Reg


Evans, Loan (Aberdare)
Richardson, Jo


Evans, John (Newton)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Field, Frank
Robertson, George


Fitt, Gerard
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, John
Sandelson, Neville


Graham, Ted
Sever, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Sheerman, Barry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée


Heffer, Eric S.
Silverman, Julius


Homewood, William
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stallard, A. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stoddart, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Leighton, Ronald
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tilley, John


McElhone, Frank
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Michael


McNally, Thomas
White, Frank R.


McWilliam, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Newens, Stanley



O'Halloran, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly agreed to

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Motions Nos. 3 to 12 on the Order Paper may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and that when proceedings on the first Motion have been disposed of or, if any amendments have been selected to that Motion, when the first such amendment has been disposed of, Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions and of any amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — The Royal Navy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Minister, I should warn the House that there is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members with a deep interest in the Royal Navy. They can be called only if those who are fortunate enough to catch my eye at the beginning are mindful of their colleagues.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): This debate on the Royal Navy follows closely upon the brilliant operation by British forces to liberate the Falkland Islands. At every stage, our naval commanders and their men showed skill, courage and seamanship of the highest order. From the initial assembly of the task force in a matter of days, through the progressive tightening of the sea and air blockade of the islands to the vital battles for San Carlos beachhead and the final attack on Port Stanley, their contribution to the success of the operations was absolutely fundamental.
No finer tribute can be paid to our men and their ships than to say that their actions were in the highest traditions of the Royal Navy and Merchant Marine. I shall return to our maritime achievements in the South Atlantic at greater length later in my speech.
We are an island nation with a great and long tradition of maritime affairs. We still depend on the sea for our economic and strategic well-being. Some 95 per cent. of our trade goes by sea. We have the fifth largest merchant fleet in the world although, as hon. Members have pointed out in earlier debates, its size is diminishing, which is a cause for concern. For centuries the Royal Navy has been what was once rightly described as "the floating bulwark" of this island. It has provided the direct seaborne defence of the United Kingdom and has been an essential means of projecting British power in Europe and the wider world.
A strong Britain and a strong Royal Navy are essential now to the continued well-being of the NATO Alliance. The facts of geography mean that we are well placed to act early against a Warsaw Pact threat. In time of war, our ships, submarines and ship and shore-based aircraft would be deployed in and around the Norwegian sea and in the vicinity of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom choke point to contain Warsaw Pact forces and to deny them the use of the open sea. They would also provide defence in depth against hostile forces which had pre-deployed, or which had evaded our forward defences, in order to protect the reinforcement, re-supply and economic shipping essential to the survival of our island and to the conduct of sustained operations in Europe. We would, of course, be fighting alongside our allies, and we welcome the United States' plans for increasing its own naval strength.
There is a vital national as well as Alliance reason for maintaining a strong navy. As the Falklands operation showed, we need strong naval forces to maintain the

ability to project British power in purely national interests. For national and Alliance reasons, our naval forces must be as strong and flexible as possible. The question that arises is the best size and shape for the navy of the future, given the threat and the resources made available to us. We have to work within the financial resources that we have.
The Government came to office committed to give priority to defence, because we recognised that security was essential to our survival as a free nation. As a result, in the first three years of this Administration, the real increase in our expenditure on defence is expected to be about 8 per cent. We have announced our aim of increasing defence, spending by a further 3 per cent. in real terms in each year till 1985–86. This is surpassed among our major allies only by the United States. We are spending more in absolute terms on defence than France or Germany. Our defence expenditure per head and as a percentage of GNP is in each case the third highest in We Alliance.
When the Government came to office all three Services were suffering from financial overstretch. There was simply no possibility of paying for all the items in the programmes of the Services we inherited even with a 3 per cent. real growth in the defence budget.
Levels of pay, too, were inadequate. In April 1979, the Navy was 5 per cent. below its required strength. Wastage was running at 7 per cent. a year and recruiting was falling short of target by nearly 20 per cent. In 1979, six ships had to be mothballed because we did not have the men to man them, and other ships and aircraft could not he used because fuel, ammunition and spare parts were in short supply. Levels of training, exercises and activity had been pared to the barest minimum.
These were merely the short-term symptoms of a deeper problem—that of equipment cost growth which is discussed fully in chapter 4 of the defence White Paper. Defence is at the frontier of technological change, and our weapons and equipment have to keep pace.
Towed array sonar, the development of torpedoes into true guided weapons and the advent of short take-off and vertical take-off aircraft have pushed up costs with enhanced capability. A new type 22 with its advanced systems costs more than £130 million and is three times as expensive in real terms as its predecessor, the Leander. A Sea Wolf costs three times more than the Sea Cat, but, of course it has a better chance of achieving a kill.
Cost growth is not a new problem, but the pace of technological change has accelerated over recent years, taking defence costs with it, and shows every sign of continuing to do so.
There is a wider problem posed by technological advance. The power of modern weapons to find targets accurately and hit them hard at long ranges increases the vulnerability of major platforms such as ships and aircraft. This has been amply shown by recent events in the South Atlantic. In addition, the rate of consumption of missiles, torpedoes and ammunitition in modern warfare can be rapid. Nearly 8,000 rounds were fired by 4·5 in. guns during the brief Falklands campaign. We have to recognise those trends and exploit them. That means an alteration in the balance of investment between platforms, on the ore hand, and weapons and weapon stocks, on the other. That is a shift to hitting and staying power. It is no good having a large number of ships if we cannot afford to give them sufficient modern offensive and defensive weapons and sensors.
We will, in future, have fewer hulls, but our aim is to have a force level of about 50 destroyers and frigates. That will mean an ordering pattern of three new vessels a year when the type 23 is available to sustain force levels.

Mr. Jim Spicer: With regard to ordering patterns, will my hon. Friend refer to replacements for the losses in the Falklands? One order has already been placed, but there are three orders outstanding. Will he tell us about that during the debate?

Mr. Blaker: The order that has been placed is not a replacement for one of the four ships that were lost. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that during the defence debate. We believe that it is right to assess the lesson of the Falklands when deciding what replacement orders to make. The short time that may be required to make that assessment will help us to make the right decision. If we rush, we may not get the right answer.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that four ships will be ordered to replace the four that were lost and that they will not be part of the original plan for new ships? They must be additional ships.

Mr. Blaker: My right hon. Friend said that we shall replace all the Falkland losses, although not necessarily on a like-for-like basis.

Dr. David Owen: Will the 50 destroyers and frigates be on active service, or will some be in reserve? If some are to be in reserve, how many and at what readiness—a fortnight, a month, or longer than that?

Mr. Blaker: As we have said before, of the 50 ships, up to eight—I emphasise the words "up to"—would be in the standby squadron, which would be at 30 days readiness. It does not mean that eight would necessarily be in the standby squadron at any one time.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Minister mean that he is thinking of no more than 42 operational destroyers and frigates?

Mr. Blaker: When the hon. Gentleman reads what I have just said, he will see that I did not say that. He will see what I said and what I meant.
We shall be phasing out older and more manpower-intensive ships. Because we shall be ending the practice of mid-life modernisation, vessels will spend a greater proportion of their lives at sea and less in the dockyards. Therefore, their availability at sea will be greater.
I should make it clear, to avoid any misunderstanding, that it is not our intention to give up modernising ships. The great majority of our older frigates have already been modernised.
Although refits will be primarily intended to restore the material state of the ship, our aim will be to incorporate as many weapon and sensor improvements as possible. To that end we have started to devise ways of simplifying this kind of work. In the type 22 programme we have already begun to make use of advanced modular construction techniques, and have been moving towards easily replaceable weapon systems. We shall be developing that trend further in the design of the type 23 with the aim of making it easier to replace or update components throughout the life of the ship.

Sir Frederick Burden: If the weapon system has to be changed on existing ships, they will have to return to the dockyards for the weapons to be replaced. The ships cannot be taken to the supermarket and the weapons taken off the shelf and fitted. They need proper attention. They must go into the dockyards to be equipped with the new weapons.

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to refer to the motion in his name and the names of a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends. That motion, while welcoming the increasing number of SSNs, suggests that it is essential to keep Chatham dockyard in order to refit them. I very much respect my hon. Friend's views, and pay tribute to him for his straightforward and sturdy support for a fine dockyard at Chatham which has served the Royal Navy well for centuries. I doubt whether I shall persuade him of the Government's views, but I have to say again that, although we fully recognise Chatham's excellent record in SSN refitting, and other respects, we are convinced that the remaining dockyards will be capable of dealing with the planned SSN refitting load, and the other dockyard tasks. Devonport now has two SSNs in hand, and I have no reason to suppose, having looked at the matter yet again, that it will be unable to develop its skills and experience to cope with its SSN task. As my hon. Friend knows, a good deal of valuable expertise will go from Chatham to Devonport as staff, both industrial and non-industrial, are transferred there over the coming months.

Sir Frederick Burden: My hon. Friend has switched to submarines without answering my question about surface ships. Will he please answer that question?

Mr. Blaker: I thought that I had answered that question. If I did not, I apologise. Despite what my hon. Friend said, I am sorry to say that, according to all the advice that we have received, it will not be necessary for us to retain Chatham dockyard. Such is the state of our budget that we cannot afford to sustain and maintain assets which we do not require.

Mr. Keith Speed: Modernisation is extremely important. As there have been a number of statements from his Department, can the Minister make it clear that in future surface ships will have their radar, electronic counter measures, sonar, missiles and guns modernised, as and when necessary, to meet the burgeoning threat, and that if, during the modernisation, engines or hull components require repairing, that will be done in the dockyard?

Mr. Blaker: I stick to what I have said. My hon. Friend has in past debates made the point about the importance of the capability to modernise, even with our short-life system. It is our intention to modernise as necessary, in spite of the short-life system.
I turn now to HMS "Invincible". The House will know that it was always our intention to keep two carriers in service after 1985—HMS "Illustrious" and HMS "Ark Royal". Two carriers would have meant that only one was available during a period of refit. Following our experience in the Falklands, the Government have decided that we should keep a third carrier to provide for refits or accident and to ensure that two are available, at short notice, at all times. For that reason, we have informed the Australian Government that we wish to retain HMS


"Invincible" and the Australian Defence Minister is now communicating our wishes to his colleagues in the Australian Cabinet. In place of HMS "Invincible" we have indicated to the Australians that we are prepared to make HMS "Hermes" available to the Royal Australian Navy on favourable financial terms, and we have also been discussing with them a package of helicopters—and maybe Harriers. My right hon. Friend expects to he able to say more on this subject as soon as we hear the result of the talks in Canberra.

Mr. Duffy: In view of what the Minister has just said about the retention of HMS "Invincible", what is the Department's planned capacity for Portsmouth dockyard? There will be an effect upon the employment level in the dockyard and intended redundancies.

Mr. Blaker: We shall be examining what is required as a result of that decision. I can say no more at present.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I endorse the point that has been made about the uncertain future of people in the Portsmouth area. I want to ask about manpower in the Royal Navy. The signal that went out from the First Sea Lord, following the defence review, said that manpower in the Royal Navy would be reduced by about 10,000 and would continue at that rate. That is the central problem for all those who have the interests of the Royal Navy at heart. I and my hon. Friends cannot be happy about the Royal Navy's future unless the point is clarified and we are reassured.

Mr. Blaker: That is one point that we shall want to clarify. We are evaluating the Falklands campaign, and we cannot rush that. Among other things, we must wait for those who took part in the campaign to return. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall publish a White Paper with the conclusions later this year.
Expenditure on the construction of new ships, including their fitted weapons, has increased each year under this Government and in 1981–82 reached £680 million. That is the highest recorded total in real terms in the 19 years for which information is available, and nearly 50 per cent. higher in real terms than expenditure in 1978–79, the last full financial year of the previous Administration.
There are now 27 ships and five submarines on order or for which we have invited tenders, of which 20 relate to the period of this Government.

Mr. George Robertson: Before the Minister skims over the statistics, some of which we have heard before, will he say when the orders were placed for the £ ½ billion more that this Government are spending in real terms on equipment than was spent in 1978–79? Were they not placed under the previous Government?

Mr. Blaker: Most of the orders paid for in this year were placed by the Labour Government.

Mr. Duffy: And next year and the year after.

Mr. Blaker: And they intended the orders to be paid for with post-dated cheques. The 1979 Labour election manifesto stated:
We shall continue with our plans to reduce the proportions of the nation's resources devoted to defence, so that the burden we bear will be brought into line with that carried by our main allies.
The Labour Government could not conceivably have paid for the shipbuilding programme that we are paying for had they put that policy into effect. They ordered no ships in

their first year in office, but they ordered four in the weeks immediately before the general election. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
We are devoting increasing resources to weapons. Since coming into office we have approved the full development or production of a wide range of programmes, chief among which are the Sting Ray lightweight torpedo, the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo, the Sea Eagle air-launched sea-skimming anti-ship missile, which is a whole generation in advance of Exocet and able, unlike Exocet, to distinguish between a ship and a decoy, and the Skynet IV communications satellite. We have also announced our intention of giving the Sea Wolf short-range missile defence system an improved capability against a very low level attack.
At the same time we are pursuing programmes already under way—the Sea Skua short-range anti-ship missile is now entering service as is the submarine launched anti-ship missile Sub-Harpoon, while, with airborne equipment, work is going ahead on the conversion of the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft to improved standards. In addition, Nimrods have been fitted with the anti-ship Harpoon missile and the Sidewinder, which will give some self-defence capability. We would not have been able to afford all these vital weapon programmes without the resources released by our review.
Anti-submarine warfare remains our chief maritime priority. For some years the Soviet Union has been introducing into service a range of quieter nuclear submarines armed with longer range missiles. The area to be covered at sea has thus widened, so we need a programme of work on improving our sonar capability. We are pressing ahead with developing and acquiring more modern sonobuoys dropped from aircraft and helicopters and are fitting some type 22 frigates and retrofitting a number of Leanders with long-range advanced towed sonars. The type 23 frigate will also be equipped with these towed sonars. As it has been designed for quietness it will be a very effective anti-submarine warfare ship.
We are also continuing to convert our Sea King mark 2 anti-submarine helicopters to the more advanced mark 5. The successor to the Sea King, the EH101, will also constitute a major step forward in anti-submarine warfare with its greatly increased range and endurance and complementary avionics and sensor fit.
Our objectives remain to advance as rapidly as possible to the type 23 frigate and in the meantime to keep our requirements for type 22s under review. We also want to keep up the momentum of the submarine programme.

Sir Patrick Wall: When does my hon. Friend expect the first type 23 frigate to be commissioned? The Select Committee discussed the matter. British Shipbuilders said 1986 and the Admiralty 1988. Since then the Secretary of State has advanced the date.

Mr. Blaker: The type 23 cannot be commissioned before 1988.
In little more than a year we have ordered or announced tenders for three type 22 frigates. We have also ordered a nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine and have invited tenders for another, the seventeenth. We hope to order the eighteenth in the series during the next financial year.

Sir Frederick Burden: Was the design for the seventeenth SSN hunter-killer under the programme of the previous Government or of this Government? If it is this Government's programme, how much has it increased over that of the previous Government?

Mr. Blaker: I said that we had ordered the seventeenth.

Sir Frederick Burden: That is not the question that I asked.

Mr. Blaker: I am not clear what my hon. Friend was asking then.

Sir Frederick Burden: I was talking about the SSN.

Mr. Blaker: That is what I was talking about, too. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can discuss the matter in the lobby afterwards.
We have debated Trident several times in recent months. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if the Opposition were to return to the subject today, implying that because they would cancel Trident more money would be available under them for our conventional forces. That is a claim that they cannot substantiate. The Opposition's goal, however it is hedged about, is a reduction of about one-third in our total defence expenditure. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, over the period of Trident's introduction that would mean reducing defence spending by about 11 Trident programmes. Labour's objective would involve massive cuts in our conventional forces, equivalent to virtually eliminating one of the three Services entirely.
But, in addition, the Opposition say that they would cancel—

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Why is the Minister not up to date?

Mr. Blaker: I am right up to date. I am quoting from the latest documents.
The Opposition say that they would cancel our commitment to a 3 per cent. annual increase. That commitment is absolutely clear. It is not hedged about by provisos intended to confuse, as was the Opposition's other commitment. Even if the 3 per cent. increase were cancelled for only three years—which is the period for which we have committed ourselves—the cumulative effect would eliminate from the defence budget more than twice all the money that would be saved from cancelling Trident. Under the Opposition's plans it is a mathematical impossibility that more money could be available for conventional forces from cancelling Trident.
I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not mention the exercises in which the Royal Navy has been engaged this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to do that.
I return to operation Corporate. Although there were difficulties and setbacks in the operation to liberate the Falkland Islands, there was, above all, an extraordinary record of achievement at every level of the naval Service. From the very start this was shown by the speed with which the task force was mobilised, supplied for war and deployed. The first warships of the task force sailed within three days of the Argentine invasion. The professionalism, willingness and application shown by all those involved in preparing the ships for deployment was magnificent. The dockyards worked round the clock with ships' staffs and the naval support organisations to achieve the object of

preparing the ships in time. The results were seen by the nation on 5 April as the fleet sailed, equipped and ready for operations.
The task of mounting and sustaining the operation at such short notice, at such a distance from the United Kingdom and with such success is a feat that has been widely acclaimed by our Allies and one which many would scarcely have believed possible had it been suggested before it happened. Nor can our readiness and resolve have gone unnoticed by the Warsaw Pact.
A total of 42 warships were involved in the operation and they deployed a wide range of capabilities and systems the combined effectiveness of which has been proved in battle. The high state of operational readiness maintained by the Fleet under appalling weather conditions and enemy attack was remarkable and a fine tribute to our ability to conduct prolonged operations.
The performance of the men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines has been superlative. Ships' companies and others with the Fleet responded with courage and skill to the challenge facing them in stormy seas and under constant threat of enemy action. Their families and friends—and indeed the nation—have every reason to be proud of them.
We have already explained to the House that we do not propose to compare at this stage the performance of individual weapon systems. That will be evaluated carefully during the next few months, with other types of equipment and other aspects of the campaign, and will be covered in the White Paper to be issued later in the year. However, I can say that all our weapon systems scored successes and I would like to remind the House of the matchless record of the Sea Harrier and its pilots. They shot down at least 28 Argentine aircraft, without any loss to themselves, in air-to-air combat. Together with naval missiles they accounted for more Argentine aircraft than any other cause.
That the landing in San Carlos Bay was achieved without casualties to our ground forces was due in no small part to the air defence layers provided by the Royal Navy during the landing when our land forces were at their most vulnerable. The enemy aircraft activity over the beach head represented only the remnants of much larger attacking formations which had suffered severe losses at the hands of the Sea Harriers carrying out interceptions well to the West.
The ships on the gunline in Falkland Sound and just outside it bore the brunt of the close air attacks. The Argentines were obliged by our missile systems to attack at wave-top height in an effort to avoid our air defence. It is not surprising that a proportion of such attacks, pressed home with considerable numbers of aircraft and with much resolve, succeeded in getting through. The gunline ships, obliged to remain in confined waters to protect the military units, landing ships and stores ships, were less manoeuvrable than they would have been in the open sea and were unable to take full advantage of their weapon systems.
That was a price that we had to pay to achieve the landing at San Carlos. Five of our ships were damaged that day, including HMS "Ardent" which sank after being hit by bombs and rockets following numerous air attacks, but the cost to the Argentines was about 18 aircraft lost. As a result of the Royal Navy's effort, our objective was


achieved and the entire force of about 5,000 men, with their weapons and stores, was landed without a casualty. That was a remarkable achievement.
I said something in a recent debate about the part played by the Royal Marines.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we to have an assessment of the problems of fire going through the ships, and in particular of the poisonous fumes given off from the lagging and covering of cables which was the cause of deaths on some of the ships?

Mr. Blaker: That will certainly be part of the assessment to which I have referred.
The Royal Marines played a major role in recapturing South Georgia without loss of life, and on the Falkland Islands once again demonstrated their versatility and professionalism. Their "yomping" about 80 miles across East Falkland must now be a household word. The brigade successfully overcame Argentine positions at Mount Harriet, Two Sisters Ridge and Mount Longdon, the last taken by the Third Battalion of the Parachute Regiment operating as part of 3 Commando Brigade, before Argentine resistance collapsed and Port Stanley was taken.
None of the Royal Navy's operations in the Falklands would have been possible without the untiring support that they received from the men and ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, which were crewed largely by civilians who volunteered for this dangerous task. They included, of course, the logistic landing ships.
From the Fleet Air Arm, as well as the Sea Harriers, over 150 helicopters were involved. Flying rates were intensive and in the worst weather conditions. Their high states of readiness, maintained for long periods, are a credit to the skill and determination of aircrew and maintainers. The House will need no reminding of the search and rescue operations carried out by the helicopter pilots who, as we all saw so vividly recorded on television, demonstrated conspicuous gallantry in Bluff Cove.
The House will wish me to say something about the role played during the Falklands operation by the Merchant Navy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I paid tribute in the recent defence debate to its contribution, which was magnificent, and essential to the success of the enterprise.
It has long been our plan that in time of national emergency we would call on the resources of the Merchant Navy. The speed with which the vessels needed were taken up owed much to the contingency planning that has been carried out over the years, although the enormous distance involved and the formidable logistic problems that resulted meant that a different mix and number of ships had to be acquired, compared with the requirements for a war in the East Atlantic.
Over 50 ships were chartered or requisitioned from 33 different companies. They ranged from passenger liners, to tankers, repair ships and tugs. Many of them had to be adapted. For instance, helicopter decks had to be bolted on or gear fitted to enable ships to be refuelled at sea. The work was done in record time, thanks to the enthusiasm of the work force in the Royal dockyards and commercial yards involved. These ships and the RFAs transported over 105,000 tons of freight to the South Atlantic, including 420 tons of fuel and 95 aircraft.
I cannot speak too highly of the courage and dedication of the crews who went to the South Atlantic. They had to

operate in conditions vastly different from those to which they are used. At times they were in great danger. As the House knows, the "Atlantic Conveyor" sank after being hit by an Exocet missile with the tragic loss of her master and several of her crew. The tanker "British Wye" was bombed but miraculously escaped severe damage or casualties. That was by any standards a splendid contribution from the Merchant Navy.
There will certainly be lessons to be learnt from the Falklands operation. In particular, we shall wish to consider with the Department of Trade and the General Council of British Shipping the question of the installation of defensive equipment on board those merchant ships earmarked for taking up from trade, or at least preparatory work—

Sir Frederick Burden: My hon. Friend will agree that that is a little belated when it was stressed a long time ago, not least by myself, that there should be immediate consultations with the British merchant shipping organisations about the part that they would play and what defence they would have in carrying out their obligations in war.

Mr. Blaker: I was about to come to that. I had a long and useful meeting with the general council in April and our officials have begun preliminary discussions on the subjects raised. A comprehensive presentation is today being given to the general council and the shipowners on the role played by merchant shipping in the operation. That will set the scene for the future work to be continued under the shipping defence advisory committee, the principal forum for discussion on these very important matters.
The Falkland Islands campaign has been one of the most remarkable military actions in modern times, conducted by all three Services and the Merchant Marine. As its result not only are the Falkland Islanders once more free, but small countries breathe easier around the world. The Royal Navy has been involved in the campaign from the first hour. Even now it cannot drop its guard. Throughout that time the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine have been the vital underpinning of the whole campaign. Of the quality of our ships and their armament and our naval aircraft we shall learn much from the studies which will be conducted over the next few months. I believe that they have served us well. What is beyond debate is the quality of the men of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Merchant Navy who took part in the Falkland Islands campaign. Their conduct has been superb and has earned the admiration, respect and gratitude of the British people.

Mr. Denzil Davies: At the beginning and again towards the end of his speech the Minister paid fulsome tributes to the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy and the various other arms of the maritime services and praised them for their brilliant efforts on the Falklands. The Opposition endorse all that. But we are not really worried about the Royal Navy. We are worried about Ministers and Government policy. That is why we are practically having a second debate today on the Royal Navy.
The last two-day debate on the White Paper concentrated to a great extent upon the Royal Navy and


upon maritime strategy. We believe that the Government's policies towards the Royal Navy are very damaging and will cause considerable damage to our maritime defences. The Government's naval policy is a shambles, and the Falklands campaign and the speeches made by Ministers only highlight that shambles and compound it every day.
The Minister said that the Government were prepared to save "Invincible" and have three carriers. We welcome that, but we should like to know why. A defence White Paper was published, without any reference to the Falklands, on the basis that nothing had changed in the strategy and that the real threat was from the Soviet Union in the Eastern Atlantic. Presumably, on the basis of that strategy, it was thought that two carriers were sufficient. It was thought that it did not matter that one carrier was in dock or being refitted for about four months of the year because the other one would be sufficient in the East Atlantic.
If the basis of the White Paper is the same, why do we need three carriers, much as we welcome the third one? What has changed? Has the strategy changed? I think that we should be told by the Minister what is the real basis in strategy terms—or is it merely that the Government saw that they had made a mistake and now are afraid to sell "Invincible" to the Australians?
The Minister tried to twist and turn and to present figures to show that the conventional forces of the Royal Navy were not being cut at all and that the Royal Navy was quite as strong at it was when it was inherited from the last Labour Government. But everyone knows that that is not so. We know that the Royal Navy is weaker and that it will be weaker still by the end of the decade.
As Opposition spokesmen have said before, we believe that the conventional forces of the Royal Navy are bearing the brunt of most of the cost of the Government's original decision to buy the Trident I missile system. The Minister dealt with it, and it is necessary to come back to it and to set the whole of the cuts in the context of Government policy. The Trident I missile system was to cost about £5 billion, and most of the cuts in the Royal Navy were to pay for it. But now the situation has changed. Because of the exigencies of American defence policy—not from choice, but because the Government are tied into American defence policy—the Government have been forced to buy the much more expensive and more lethal Trident II. On the Government's own estimate, taking this year's prices that is likely to cost about £8 billion. The Opposition think that the figure will be £10 billion at this year's prices.
Not only do we have this exorbitant cost—the cost of the Trident I has been accounted for, but the cost of the Trident II has not yet been accounted for—we also have so much of this expenditure going across the exchanges and being spent in the United States. It does not even come to the British economy. There may perhaps be some setoff, but 45 per cent. of the cost of the Trident II will go across the exchanges to the United States.
What is more, much of that cost is totally outside the Government's control. I cannot see how they can give precise figures for the cost of the Trident II. There is the cost of the exchange rate, for a start. If the dollar value of the pound falls, it will cost more. The Government have no control over that. The pound may rise, but it may fall. The cost is entirely outside the control of the Government.
Then we have the actual expenditure in the United States. When we debated the Trident, we were told that there was some kind of ceiling upon the expenditure in America—the 45 per cent.; the £4·5 billion, if the Opposition's figures are correct—but apparently that ceiling is to be index-linked for inflation. Again I ask the Government how that figure will be worked out. What kind of inflation are we to build into that £4·5 billion which is to be spent in the United States? Are we talking about American inflation, British inflation or some strange concoction of the two?
How are we to assess inflation? The Minister talked about technological change in the defence industries. Sometimes he talks about defence inflation. I am not sure where defence inflation stops and technological change starts. What are we to build into this figure of possibly £4·5 billion in dollars spent in the United States without any benefit to the British economy? How are the Government to be able to control that figure? How do they know what the figure is to be? If it is indexed to the defence inflation of the American armaments industry, the sky is the limit because it is difficult to assess it and there is very little control over it.
I make no apology for coming back to the Trident. The Royal Navy is already paying for the Trident I and in my view the Secretary of State and his Ministers have a duty to the House and to the country to say how much more in future will have to be cut from our conventional foces—the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force—to pay for the doubling of expenditure on the Trident II.
The expenditure may fall a little later, towards the end of the decade. Perhaps the Secretary of State feels that it will not be his problem. In his more optimistic moments, probably he is hoping to be at the Treasury by then. In his more pessimistic moments, it may be that he sees himself growing daffodils in Cornwall. Whether it is to be the Treasury or the daffodils, he should now tell the House clearly from where the money is to come, what expenditure will have to be cut, and whether the Royal Navy will have to be cut again to pay for the Trident II.
The Minister tried to pretend that the Royal Navy was not being cut by too much and that in any case the last Labour Government's plans were unrealistic.

Mr. Antony Buck: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the nuclear issue, does not he appreciate that it seems to many of us that precisely the same reasons actuated the Government in going for the Trident as caused the right hon. Gentleman's Government to participate in the updating of our nuclear deterrent, the Chevaline? It would have been very difficult if the Argentines had had a low-grade nuclear weapon and we had had nothing in our own control to deal with it.

Mr. Davies: We have had a debate on the Trident and the feasibility of having nuclear weapons. I am making the fair point that the Government should say from where the extra cost of the Trident II is to come. The 1981 White Paper was laid before the House before the decision to buy the Trident II.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Atlantic is a two-way street? All his arguments against a possible escalation


of costs for the Trident or any other weapon purchased from the United States works the other way on stuff that we are selling the United States.

Mr. Davies: I cannot see 45 per cent. of the costs of the Trident coming back from the United States.
I move on to the state of the Royal Navy which was bequeathed to this Government by the last Labour Administration. In our last debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out what the position was. He said that 96 major warships and submarines other than Polaris were in existence when the Conservative Government took office. By April of this year, before the Falklands crisis—there have been some changes since then—the figure was down to 86. Despite the recent announcement, we shall see a further decline by the end of the decade. Of the 27 major warships that have entered service since 1979 or that will enter service over the next five years, only four have been ordered by the present Government.
The Minister confirmed that the figure of destroyers and frigates—major warships—will now be 50, of which 42 will be operational. We are now to have three aircraft carriers, but apparently we shall still only have two dockyards.
The Minister also mentioned weapons and new equipment. Before the Falklands crisis, I do not remember any urgency over ordering the light-weight Sea Wolf system which would have been so helpful in the Falklands. Now apparently it is a splendid weapon, but there was not much urgency before. Then there was the Sea Eagle, which apparently is far superior to the Exocet. Nothing much was done about that, either. But immediately after hostilities ended, the Secretary of State appeared on television standing in front of a Sea Eagle saying what a splendid weapon it was. Why was not it a splendid weapon before the Falklands campaign—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] Then why did not the Government order it?

Mr. Blaker: It was ordered before.

Mr. Davies: It was ordered after a great deal of dithering by the Government.
The true explanation of the Government's policy on the Navy was clearly set out in an editorial in The Times of 21 June, which said:
The severity of Mr. Nott's proposed cuts in naval strength is concealed by the fact that the fleet will rise in strength for the next two years, mostly as a result of construction orders placed by the Callaghan government. There is some sleight of hand here in ministerial explanations,"—
that, I assume, is the understatement of The Times—
because the strength of the fleet will be bitten into severely after 1985".
That did not come from the Labour Party; it came from an editorial in The Times.
The truth is that the Labour Party bequeathed to the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers a task force which could be put together with extraordinary speed and which could sail 8,000 miles to the edge of the South Pole. If the Government's cuts are allowed to go ahead, I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will bequeath to his successor the same inheritance.
It has been rightly said that one of the reasons for the invasion of the Falklands was that the Government sent General Galtieri all the wrong signals. I am sure that most people would agree with that. One of those signals was the decision to withdraw HMS "Endurance". I believe that

another signal was the decision to reduce the strength of the Royal Navy and cut he dockyards. Perhaps the junta in Buenos Aires is parochial, but there is nothing parochial about the Argentine foreign service, and when Mr. Costa Mendez made his assessment of the likely consequences of an invasion and whether Britain would react I have no doubt that the well-publicised reports of the cuts in the Royal Navy led Argentina to the conclusion that Britain could not and would not react to a Falklands invasion.
The Minister said that three days after the invasion the Government sent some warships down there. Why did they not send submarines on 19 March? We saw the reports in The Observer last week and the previous week.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): They are all wrong.

Mr. Davies: Well, they have an authentic ring about them. The Secretary of State may say that they are all wrong, but can he confirm that the Cabinet Committee or the Ministry of Defence was never asked to send submarines to the South Atlantic before the invasion? If he can confirm that, he should come to the Dispatch Box and say so. It is no good his shaking his head from a sedentary position. I have considerable doubt about the Government's position. The decision to withdraw HMS "Endurance" was a clear signal, as I think all would agree.
In the debate in this chamber on 6 July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked when HMS "Endurance" would be coming back from the South Atlantic, in view of the length of time that her crew had been there. The Under-Secretary of State said that he was not in a position to give an answer at that time. Now that hostilities have terminated, I hope that the Minister will make a statement. The crew's families are anxious, because the ship has been away a long time. I hope that the Minister will at least tell us that "Endurance" will be back in sufficient time for her captain to give evidence to the inquiry, because I am told that he has an interesting tale to tell. It was recently reported in a newspaper, and I have no reason to doubt the truth of the report, that the captain had said that
All the signs were there. We could see it was going to happen: why could not everyone else?
I understand that "Endurance" took an interesting official film of the events that took place around South Georgia. Perhaps we could have a look at an unedited version of that film in the Library one of these days.
We believe that the cuts in the surface fleet of the Royal Navy have been made for purely financial reasons, not because of a deep-seated analysis of defence and naval strategy. Indeed, the keeping of "Invincible" confirms that. Despite that, the Secretary of State has sought on a few occasions to give a different impression. He sought to cover the cuts with a veneer of intellectuality. In the debate in the House on 7 July last year on the 1981 White Paper which led to the cuts, he tried to give the impression that there was a strategic view of how a war with the Soviet Union was likely to start.
The most favoured scenario appeared to be that the war in central Europe would be a short war, so that reinforcements by sea from the United States could not arrive in time. I quote what the Secretary of State said on that occasion:
If the Soviets attempted to smash a way through on the central front with their overwhelming conventional superiority, there might be a war that was nasty, brutish and short".


He went on to say that if the central front did not hold, no reinforcements from the United States would be possible over the succeeding months. Further on, he said:
In the defence review,"—
that is, the 1981 defence review—
therefore, we looked first at our ability to hold such an attack … it would be a blitzkrieg of immense conventional force".— [Official Report, 7 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 277–78.]
The Secretary of State could be right. On the other hand, he could be wrong. If there were such an attack, it could get bogged down in central Europe. A land attack might not happen on the central front; it might happen somewhere else. It is quite possible that hostilities would not take place on land at all, but at sea. So a war in central Europe might not be the most plausible scenario. It is not too fanciful to suggest that, in a period of international tension, the Soviet Union might declare a large area of the North Atlantic a total exclusion zone.

Mr. Nott: I have never said or predicted that a war would necessarily be a short war, although those sentiments have often been put in my mouth. What I have said is that if the Soviet Union were successful in the early days of the war in fighting its way through to the Channel, reinforcements might well prove to be too late.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but in that speech the Secretary of State did not deal with any other scenario. If he was fair, he would have said "On the other hand, there are other scenarios". He was concerned to make a case—a rather superficial one—for the cuts in the Royal Navy which were imposed because the Government had to buy Trident 1. If he wanted to discuss that matter, he should have discussed it in depth instead of saying what he did, and nothing else at all. I say again that it is perfectly possible, in a time of international tension, for the war to start at sea, not on land, and for the Soviet Union to declare a part of the North Atlantic a total exclusion zone.
In the debate on 7 July, the Secretary of State quoted from the writings of a Soviet general. I seem to remember a previous debate in which he dealt with some of the thoughts of the redoubtable Admiral Gorchkof. I know that the Secretary of State is not best pleased with admirals these days. There are a lot of them about, and most of them seem to live in the letter columns of The Times. I quite understand how he feels. If Soviet military strategy is still his bedtime reading, I suggest to him a book by the redoubtable Gorchkof called "The Combat Path of the Soviet Navy". Perhaps I might give one quotation from it:
Napoleon's failure to invade England was due to his one sided strategy which stemmed from his preoccupation with operations in the land theatres and his lack of understanding of the Navy, his disregard for its capabilities in war and thus his inability to use it in a struggle with a maritime power".
The huge build-up of the Soviet Navy over the past 10 years which often worries Conservative Members and the Secretary of State—

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman would hardly expect any admiral to say anything else.

Mr. Davies: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's dislike of admirals, and obviously he will not listen to anything that any of them say any more. However, perhaps he should pay some attention to why there has been a build-up of the Soviet Navy. There has been a build-up, not because the Soviet Union was initially

concerned with what the Americans call projecting power over the world—what we would call showing the flag—but because of a belief, taken from Russian history, that the Soviet Union cannot win even a land war against a maritime power. The admiral may be right, or he may be wrong, but that is one reason for it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not dismiss all admirals, even if he dismisses most British admirals.
Our main criticism of the Government's policies is that by cutting the Navy the right hon. Gentleman is tilting the balance of strategy too far towards a continental strategy and away from a maritime strategy, thus losing the flexibility which would be vital if war were tragically to break out.
I turn now to the number of major warships, frigates and destroyers, mentioned by the Minister. He said and confirmed that we should have about 50, and that without the eight which were not operational we should have about 42.

Mr. Blaker: Up to eight.

Mr. Davies: I shall say 42 and the hon. Gentleman can say "up to eight". Those 42 ships will not be committed to NATO. There will probably be two in the Gulf and with the war between Iraq and Iran getting worse—

Mr. Duffy: And two on passage.

Mr. Davies: That upsets my mathematics. I shall stick to my original figures. For the sake of argument, I shall say that there will be two ships in the Gulf, one or two in the Mediterranean, one in Belize and the Caribbean, and one in the Far East. I shall be conservative, and say five ships. That reduces the number of ships committed to NATO to 37. The number was 42 but with five engaged in out of area activities we are left with a total of 37. That was the position before the Falklands invasion. Although the Government have not told us, I have read in the newspapers that five frigates and possibly more will be needed in the Falklands. If that is the case, the number of ships committed to NATO is down to 32.
When the Government announced last year the cuts in the number of frigates and destroyers many of our allies were worried, especially the United States. The Government had to try to convince the United States that there would not be a gap in our defences. I do not believe that the United States is convinced. If we are now down to 32 ships, there is a larger gap in NATO's maritime defences. If the threat is coming from the Soviet Union, how will that gap be filled? Will it be filled by our allies? Have they said that they will provide more ships to fill that gap? Will it be filled by building more ships? I have not heard that. Or will the Government take a chance again, as they did in the Falklands? We ought to be told something—perhaps not today, but certainly in the autumn—about how the Government will fill the gap in their NATO defences since they must keep frigates in the South Atlantic and perhaps in other parts of the world.

Mr. Roger Moate: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is making a case with which I agree for a stronger Navy, but will he in turn make it clear what his party would do if it were in Government about increasing the size of the Navy? Bearing in mind that the Government have now cancelled a number of the cuts that they proposed earlier, what size surface fleet does the Labour Party advocate?

Mr. Davies: We believe that the Government should restore the cuts that they made in the Navy and restore its strength to the level that they inherited from the Labour Government. We do not believe that the Government can do that because of Trident II. That is why we believe that Trident II should be cancelled. I should return to that point later.
We should not forget also—the Minister referred to this matter—that the task force could not have been sent to the South Atlantic without the enormously efficient back-up that was provided by the Merchant Navy, by the dockyards and by the naval stores and depots. As the House knows, the Government either requisitioned or chartered 50 ships of the Merchant Navy, all of them manned by volunteers. Without them the task force could not have been sent and the fact that they were able to be brought together so quickly is a great tribute to all involved and also to the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and the Labour Government—as mentioned in a previous debate—in setting up a Merchant Navy register.
We were also fortunate that we still had a merchant fleet. With the growth of flags of convenience, it has steadily declined over the years. It has been estimated that if the decline continues at the present rate, and had the Falklands crisis occurred at the end of the decade, there would have been very few British merchant ships left to send. Ships registered in Panama and Liberia cannot be requisitioned for war and men cannot be asked to risk their lives for a flag of convenience.
The Goverment should give serious consideration—again, in all fairness, the Minister mentioned this—to establishing a proper maritime strategy for Britain. That cannot be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. It must take into account other Departments—the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Such a policy, if properly co-ordinated, would not only assist our defence but would also provide decent conditions of service for our merchant seamen, who have been shabbily treated over the years, and would provide help for our shipping and shipbuilding industries.
The Government could make a start—the Minister expressed the same sentiment—by ensuring that the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" is built in a British shipyard. It would be a national disgrace and an insult to the men who died on that ship—the Minister mentioned the captain and the others who died—if the new ship were built in a foreign yard. The Prime Minister is fond of calling upon trade unionists and others to show what she calls "The Falklands spirit". Perhaps she could now call upon the board of Trafalgar House to show that Falklands spirit and build the replacement in Britain. After all, we all know that over the years Trafalgar House companies have done quite well out of the public purse, either in tax avoidance schemes or in Government subsidies.
The future of the dockyards is a major part of the defence review. If it were not for the skill and efficiency of the dockyards and the naval stores, the task force could not have been sent and it could not have been kept operational in the South Atlantic. Despite that—we have heard it again today—the Government are going ahead with the ultimate rundown of Portsmouth, despite the postponement for a few months. They are still planning to close Chatham and Gibraltar. There are also a number of naval stores such as Llangennech, in my constituency, and

Deptford, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), which also played a major part in the Falklands campaign by ensuring that replacement parts were sent to the Falklands quickly and promptly. We call upon the Government to halt and reverse the closure of these dockyards and stores and to instigate another inquiry into the problems of the dockyards. Chatham and Gibraltar should be kept open and the rundown of Portsmouth should be cancelled.
The Falklands campaign has shown the crucial need to maintain the fleet in a state of operational readiness. If the closure plans go through, that ability will be gravely impaired. Indeed, the more the question of the dockyards is debated in the House and outside, the less convincing—the Minister was not convincing today—is the case for the closure of the dockyards. If Chatham is closed, there will not be the necessary capacity of expertise to refit our hunter-killer submarines and to keep them in a proper state of readiness. Since the Government are placing so much faith in those submarines—I do not quarrel with that—as the core of our naval defence, it is extraordinary that they should want to close the one dockyard that has the capacity and the skills to keep the nuclear-powered submarine fleet in an efficient and proper state of readiness.
To a great extent, Portsmouth and Gibraltar are the victims of the Secretary of State's decision to build disposable frigates and to forgo to a considerable extent what is described as mid-life modernisation. The Secretary of State put the matter clearly in a debate on 25 June 1981. I believe that it is worth quoting. He said:
Secondly, we can maintain our surface fleet at its present full strength only through a continuous programme of rents and major mid-life modernisations, requiring a huge and costly dockyard infrastructure. Typically it can now cost up to £70 million to modernise an old "Leander" frigate, which is actually more than our target cost for the new type 23 frigate."—[Official Report, 25 June 1981: Vol. 7, c. 389.]
It is indeed, and the figures have changed a great deal since then. The target cost was about £60 million. It had to be less than £70 million.
Those figures, with their slide rule accuracy, are very suspect and have become more suspect since. What a coincidence—a type 23 frigate costing more than the mid-life refit of a "Leander"-type frigate. I am told that it has never cost £70 million to refit a "Leander"-type frigate. Perhaps that figure was at last year's prices but the figures look extremely shaky when they are analysed. The position has become worse.
In a debate on 1 July the Secretary of State said that the type 23 frigate would now be upgraded. He said that it would now cost
around £90 million at September 1981 prices".—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1064.]
Around £90 million at last year's Ministry of Defence prices is about £100 million at this year's prices Now we are being told that the new type 23 frigate will cost close on £100 million, What will be the corresponding cost of refitting a "Leander" frigate? I do not suppose that it will be £100 million.
The idea that £100 million-worth of frigate could or would be thrown away like some paper plate is ridiculous. As I understand it, the composition of the figure has changed. The idea of planned obsolescence—that ships should be allowed to become obsolete without refitting—is ridiculous. The Government should reverse their policy of


planned obsolescence. They should keep the dockyards open and provide the Royal Navy with proper refit facilities as most other navies do.
We have a defence policy which is "unbalanced and over-extended"—that was said by the Secretary of State in his statement. Since then the Government have decided to buy Trident II and have fought a costly war with consequences that we still do not know entirely. The policy now is even more unbalanced and even more overextended. The Government should cancel the Trident project, restore the Navy cuts and give serious consideration to a maritime strategy extending beyond the limits of defence policy itself.
As Britain is an island close to a continent it is inevitable that our defence, foreign and economic policies should, to some extent, reflect that fact. However, over the past generation the balance has tilted too far towards continental considerations and it is time that it was redressed. Our defence, foreign and economic policies should again reflect the fact that we are an island and not a continental nation. As it seems that the Government do not have the will or the inclination to redress the balance—in my opinion, they will make it worse—the next Labour Government will have to do so.

Mr. Edward du Cann: The numerous occasions on which my hon. Friend the Minister of State was interrupted by hon. Members on both sides of the House—with typical courtesy he invariably gave way—illustrated the deep anxieties that are felt in all quarters of the House about the strength of the Royal Navy. The Falkland Islands campaign has undoubtedly brought them to wider notice.
As my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) have said, we should be proud. The Armed Services of our nation, which are manned entirely by volunteers—they had admirable support from our civilian Merchant fleet and from many other quarters—achieved a memorable success. It was refreshing to find all concerned operating in a spirit of "Let's get things done" rather than in, alas, what has become the habitual British approach of asking "Why should we not do this?"
In the inhospitable waters of the South Atlantic our country and our people, against all odds, and not for the first time in our history, defended principle, freedom and our heritage against a treacherous assault, and did so with splendid success. We should all rejoice in that.
It is not inappropriate in a Navy debate to say how brilliantly the Army and the Royal Marines operated. Who could have foreseen that with so few casualties they would be able to conquer an entrenched enemy on more than one occasion comprising about 10,000 soldiers? It was an essay of courage, daring and skill.
A cynical Foreign Secretary of the past once remarked that the Army was a projectile to be fired by the Navy. That, of course, is absurd, but it brings me to the point that I wish to make. Without a strong maritime capability the Falklands operation would have been impossible. This debate should not be, as it has been a bit over the past half hour or so, a discussion about who ordered what ships and when, significant though that may be in the party battle.

What matters to the nation is the Royal Navy's future. We must ensure that it is at all times adequate for the demands that may be made of it.
We have it on the authority of Lord Hill-Norton, former head of the Navy and Chief of Defence Staff, that if the Falkland crisis had come three years later Britain would not have been able to muster the task force that it needed. What are we doing and what must we do to disprove that apparently informed assertion?
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that the Government do not have a clear strategy. It seems to be entirely clear. I accept unhesitatingly the first emphasis of the Government's defence plan. The West has no choice but to strengthen its collective defence in the face of the fearsome aggressive Soviet threat. The decision to modernise our strategic nuclear deterrent is right.
Certainly our first responsibility is the defence of these islands. However, we are running grave risks in the way in which we are proceeding. Some of the decisions that we are making seem to be possibly mistaken. I hope to show how they can and might be changed.
In the Falklands campaign it took about 18,000 men in ships to land 9,000 troops. There were nearly 100 ships involved, including 1 million deadweight tanker tonnes. Also involved were the QE2 and the "Canberra", the only large passenger ships that were available. We must not forget how valuable the ships of the hydrographic fleet were which took part in the exercise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that assertion meets with the warm endorsement of the House.
I shall now give some more general statistics. The analysis that I am about to quote is a private one. It is astounding that official statistics are not available. On any one day in the year probably 10,000 ships of the world's merchant fleet are at sea. About 40 per cent. of them, or 4,000 ships, are in European waters. Many more are en route to or from European waters. It is estimated that about 500 tankers are en route to Europe on any one day.
What are the conclusions that one can draw—without detail—from these statistics? Whether we speak of the defence of British people overseas or on these islands, the defence of our Allies, our interests or our trade, the ability to bring food and raw material from outside, sometimes from many thousands of miles away, we need a strong, mobile and adequate Navy with a world-wide capability.
I warmly welcome the intervention that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a few moments ago, which was especially significant. We are awaiting the publication of a new White Paper, which will be available in about four months' time. I hope that in it we shall have a clear analysis of the United Kingdom's defence requirements and not merely a statement of what can be afforded as a sort of compromise between the Treasury and Defence Departments.
Apart from our defensive-offensive nuclear capabilities we need the ability, in conjunction with our Allies, to keep the United Kingdom and Europe provisioned, fuelled and furnished with material, plus the ability to land and supply British and Allied forces anywhere in the world. We need to discuss much more than we habitually do the most costeffective method of realising these objectives. To those who say "We cannot afford it" I reply "We cannot not afford it".
In using such terms as the "Eastern Atlantic", drawing imagined and arbitrary lines across the world's oceans and in talking of convoys from a certain point in mid-Atlantic,


arbitrarily chosen, to home waters, we risk developing a Maginot-line mentality. That seems to me to be deadly dangerous.
At the outbreak of war in 1939 Germany had fewer than 60 submarines. In 1943, at the height of the submarine battle and when the United Kingdom so narrowly escaped disaster, Doenitz commanded 139. There are 450 in the Soviet fleet today, one-third of them nuclear-powered.
By 1945, at the end of the war, the Allies had about 5,000 escorts. Today NATO could mobilise about 250. That is all. We have little in the way of a fleet of distant-water trawlers in reserve, and a trivial number of minesweepers. It is worth remembering that in 1939 the fishing industry contributed 450 deep-water fishing vessels in support of the Royal Navy. Today there are only 16 deep-water fishing vessels. They are supposed to be out in two years' time. There are a mere 58 middle-water vessels, all about 20 years old.
Like it or not, we are in the numbers game. We need many more ships—not just a few. The question is, how? I believe that this is feasible. In days gone by we had at least six rates in our line of battleships. In the last war we had the same. My naval service was short and undistinguished. I first served in a Woolworth carrier, as it was called, which was a converted merchant ship. It was a fifth-rate ship, so to speak. But what a job those Woolworth carriers and other ships like them did.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need to reintroduce that concept now. By so doing we could easily save money. Not all our ships have to be gold-plated. Not all have to carry everything. Not all have to be first-rate. We shall never build adequate numbers of mine countermeasures vessels, for example, if each costs £35 million, as the Hunt class does, according to the White Paper. The same goes for offshore patrol boats, which cost £14 million. The same certainly goes for the so-called cheap frigates. The type 23 will cost over £100 million.
Another aspect of the same point is that the capacity of some of our expensive ships—carriers such as "Invincible"—is pretty tiny when all is said and done. It carries a mix of 16 or 17 different aircraft. We could do just as well with converted merchant ships, at vastly less cost. Ships such as the "Invincible" cost £350 million. In the United States the new carriers cost 10 times this sum. But a very large cargo carrier costs only some £25 million. Cheaper ships are assuredly practical. They are one way, perhaps the only way, to achieve a better balance in the Royal Navy.
It is heartbreaking to observe the inadequacies of the fleet and the muddle between different types of ships. Heartbreaking also is the abandonment of such essential aspects of naval strength as coastal forces and maritime early-warning radar, which in the Falkland Islands nearly proved fatal to us. The proposal that the fleet, wherever it may be, will be safeguarded in future by 34 land—based Nimrod aircraft is absurd, as is the concept that the fleet will always operate below cover to be supplied by shore-based aircraft. It is a scandal that we had no early warning facilities in the Falkland Islands campaign. I hope that that is one thing that my right hon. Friend will put right.
There are other aspects of design. We shall no doubt learn the Falkland Islands lesson about the location of control rooms, flammable material, the extraordinary inadequacy of damage control arrangements and the like.
I should like to make another point about design to my right hon. Friend as he has been courteous enough to listen

to the debate. Three years ago my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and t discussed ship design with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence. The concept of building only narrow ships is wholly wrong. Broader-beamed ships are entirely possible today with modern hull formations and would give a vastly better platform. Not only that, but they could accommodate without disadvantage such as aluminium superstructures many of the heavy weaponries which today must be put at a higher level than in the past.
I hope that my right hen. Friend will consider going out to private tender for certain naval shipbuilding essays in the future. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will recall that when he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I was its Chairman, we visited the installation at Bath. It is after experience on the spot that I make that recommendation.
Our fleet was at sea for 90 days. That was a tremendous strain on the men and on the material. Both came through splendidly, but how that emphasises the need for adequate bases all over the world, such as Gibraltar, Ascension Island and Simonstown.
We must have an adequate strategic dockyard capability. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall this, too. The Public Accounts Committee went to see the nuclear refitting capability at Chatham. We saw the work that was being done on frigates. We reported to the House on those matters. I speak of what I have observed at first hand as Chairman of a Select Committee. In my view, the problem with the dockyards is a problem of management. All the evidence is there for everyone to see. There have been delays and overruns of costs—a lamentable record. However, that is not a reason for closing the dockyards, if we run the risk of there not being adequate capacity to refit ships in the future in line with the strength of the fleet. That is a reason for introducing new management. That is the tack that I recommend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pursue.
We should reintroduce the seagoing heavy repair facility, which we have apparently abandoned. We needed that badly in the Falkland Islands. We still need it.
My next point has been acknowledged to some extent by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I warmly welcomed what he said. If the Royal Navy is the front line of this nation's defence, the Merchant Navy is not the second, but it stands at the side of the professional fighting service. Since the war I have watched the British merchant fleet decline in size. That decline took place notably in 1981, when we lost 6·3 million deadweight tonnes. In the past six years we have lost two-fifths of the whole fleet. The fishing fleet has also declined. It is time to cry "Halt" to that process. We can debate in detail what might be done to bring about a practical halt, but a halt there must be.
Let us be realistic. In the South Atlantic we won a brilliant victory, although disaster was never far away. That is the truth. It is the reality. Against a more competent enemy, particularly an air force under better direction, our ship losses would have been far greater. The Government's task is to see that the practical lessons of that experience are learnt and acted upon. The responsibility of all of us on these Back Benches, especially those who, for many reasons, love and respect the Royal Navy, is to insist on nothing less. I see no reason why we should not have a Navy that is wholly adequate for the tasks which the nation might see fit to vest upon


it, provided that we adopt a radical and determined new approach to our duty. I hope that that ambition will come out of the White Paper in four months' time.

Mr. J. Grimond: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made many interesting suggestions about the future of the Navy. I am not entirely convinced by the argument that we should use a great many of what he called fifth rate ships. One of the many lessons of the Falklands affair is that such ships are extremely vulnerable, and without a sophisticated weapons system the Navy will suffer heavy losses.
One of the most famous naval bases in the world is in my constituency. Although the great ships at present in Scapa Flow are tankers rather than naval ships, it has been a naval base for a thousand years, and might be again. Moreover, many men from my constituency have joined the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. Many still go to sea as fishermen. I suppose that there is far more knowledge of the South Atlantic and of South Georgia in the Shetlands, from the whaling days, than anywhere else in Britain. Indeed, the captain of our latest carrier, the "Illustrious", is an Orkney man. Therefore, I have connections with the Navy.
On the whole, my constituents have extremely good relations with the Navy arising from the days when the Navy ran Scapa Flow. We had one slight setback owing to the incredible meanness of the Admiralty in refusing compensation to a man whose boat was sunk. It is notorious that only at the top of the Services does a slightly mean spirit sometimes intervene.
I, too, have unbounded admiration for the courage of the Navy in the South Atlantic. I pay tribute to the Navy's skill. It has always been a highly skilled Service, and today it has to keep up with the most advanced technology. It is astonishing that the Navy managed to mount the task force and keep it in the South Atlantic in the middle of winter when so many easier jobs are bungled in this country. The Falklands affair also showed that deterrence is much cheaper than retaliation. That is a lesson that many people might learn with advantage.
Despite some comments made today, I emphasise that the main task of our naval forces, as of our military and air forces, is the defence of Europe, the waters adjacent to Europe and the people who rely on NATO. That may mean going far afield, but to divert attention to out of zone tasks, such as the Falklands, would be to draw the wrong lessons. These will always be secondary. If we are too impressed by the need to keep forces available for expeditions all over the world, we shall commit the sin, of which generals are sometimes accused, of preparing for the last war over again. We must be careful to gauge the circumstances of modern warfare as they are likely to arise in different instances.
The importance of the submarine cannot be overestimated. Therefore, I am glad to hear that the hunter-killer programme is continuing. I understand that the present programme of 17 is to be increased to 18. However, I hope that they will not be delayed by the Trident programme. I have heard a suggestion that there could be a delay in the latter stages of the hunter-killer programme because it will be necessary to build submarines for Trident. I hope that that is not so. In

common with many hon. Members, I have doubts about Trident and its expense. It would be wrong if it were to delay the rest of the submarine programme.
As regards the surface ship programme, the Minister is right not to be dogmatic about the lessons of the Falklands campaign until it has been fully investigated. I am glad that an investigation is in hand.
I am not entirely clear whether the 30 or so frigates and destroyers—I am not sure of the exact number—which may be available to NATO will operate in waters in which they can survive. We need more information about the performance of surface vessels in the South Atlantic.
There is also the curious aspect of the carriers. Until recently we were assured that two carriers would be sufficient. I understand that that decision has been reversed and there will now be three carriers. What is the purpose? Is it to protect the shipping lanes in the North Atlantic and to sink submarines? What is the extra carrier for? What is the primary role of carriers?
I refer now to the interplay between ships and aircraft. The Harriers appear to have scored remarkable successes, but is it true that the Argentine aircraft were not fitted with weapons capable of dealing with aircraft? Is it true that they were fitted with anti-ship weapons only? If so, that throws a completely different light on the aircraft battles. Further, if the Argentine bombs had exploded, would we have lost six more vessels? That, if true, is an extremely important point to take into account. We may underestimate the acute danger of ships operating far from land-based aircraft. However, there is insufficient time in this debate for us to explore all aspects of naval affairs.
One lesson from the Falklands affair that we have learnt is how capable and courageous our Navy is, and that must give great heart to everyone in the country. We would not be doing any service to those who lost their lives if we drew the wrong conclusions. Therefore, I welcome the serious inquiry into the whole matter.
I cannot believe that the Argentines were misled by the cuts in the Navy. I believe they were misled by statements made by Ministers. What Ministers have said about the Falklands is on record and on tape. I am sure they were more damaging than any cuts in the numbers of surface ships. Lessons need to be learnt. We must keep our minds on the main task of the Navy and not be misled into diverting our resources to situations which may never arise.
Having said that, I again pay tribute to the Navy, and, in common with every hon. Member, I am convinced that we must keep it in good shape.

Mr. Antony Buck: I welcome the opportunity of speaking after the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I shall leave the Minister to reply to the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, save for the fact that I was slightly surprised that he questioned the purpose of the carriers. They demonstrated their utility and value in recent events. Therefore, I welcome the intention to have three carriers.
One cannot win when arguing with the Opposition. It is right that originally the intention was to have three carriers. My right hon. Friend was wrong in proposing that there should be only two. However, without much help from the Opposition, we have converted the Minister to


agreeing to the original decision that there should be three carriers. Therefore, let us be united in rejoicing that there will be three.
I am entitled to say that, but I am not sure that, with few exceptions, Opposition Members can do so. They have great plans for expansion. Yet at the same time they intend to reduce expenditure on the Services to the lowest NATO average. They will pay for this by cancelling Trident. I am something of a "matchstick man". I am not very good at dealing with the number of noughts involved in defence expenditure. However, I do not believe that cancelling Trident will enable the Opposition to do all the things that they suggest. I recommend the Opposition to carry out a close study of my right hon. Friend's document in this respect. The last document dealing with the United Kingdom Trident programme states:
So far as the impact of the defence budget is concerned we estimate that the Trident D5 programme will cost on average around 3 per cent. of the defence budget over the period during which it will be introduced into service.
The document then analyses that.
The Opposition cannot restore the dockyard cuts and increase the conventional Navy and Armed Forces everywhere by cancelling Trident. That cannot be done. My right hon. Friend will finally dispose of their arguments when he replies to the debate. It comes ill from the Opposition when one considers the state of morale which they left in the conventional Services. I represent a garrison town and, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Defence, I have been privileged to visit many of Her Majesty's ships. When the Conservative Party took office the morale of our Services was at an all-time low. I know of that from my constituents and from the ship visits that I have made.
I have never believed that Conservatives have a monopoly of concern about defence matters. However, I blame the Labour Government—

Mr. Denzil Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Buck: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. So far as I recall, in those days he was not much concerned about defence matters. He is a newcomer to this scene and is perhaps now trying to keep the Labour Party robust. I have known the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) for a long time, and I assure him that when we came to office morale in the Forces was at rock bottom.
One expects minor moaning and grumbling in the Forces—they would not be in a healthy state otherwise—but the moaning and grumbling got worse, as was demonstrated by the outflow of key personnel, particularly in the middle bracket, such as petty officers, chief petty officers, fleet chiefs and so on. Exactly the same happened in the Army. The Conservative Government are therefore entitled to considerable credit for the fact that, even before the Queen's Speech, they dealt with Forces pay and stopped the drain of key personnel—the "lifeblood of liberty"—from the Armed Forces.
A Navy debate is always a fascinating occasion. I welcome the opportunity to make a relatively short contribution. My happiest time in the House was that all too short period when I was the Minister responsible for the Royal Navy. My period as Minister was truncated because Labour won the election, but I got to know the Navy moderately well and visited every type of ship and

most major establishments. I never worked so hard in my life and never enjoyed myself so much. During that time we at least ensured that morale and pay were kept high. My admiration for what I saw of the Royal Navy knows no bounds. I have been able to keep in touch by visiting ships and meeting the Armed Forces, and my admiration for the Royal Navy has increased. It has escalated even more because of the splendid way in which the Falkland Islands affair was conducted.
Many people deserve credit for what happened in the South Atlantic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been criticised. I quarrel with him about the original decision to move the guard ship HMS "Endurance", but other than that I commend the way in which he and the Government conducted the affair. It took considerable political courage to dispatch the task force. How different things could have been had it not gone so well!
The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend deserve considerable credit for having had the courage to take that decision. I am not sure whether Labour Ministers would have taken a similar decision. They may have been influenced by Labour Members below the Gangway who are absent this evening. It is a time for national pleasure that everything went so well, in spite of the fact that there was national distress that the incident should have occurred.
We are to have an inquiry. I am sceptical about that. I have recently visited the United States, and people there find it incredible that, in spite of the fact that we have just scored a major victory, we torture ourselves by inquiring into how it happened. There should, of course, be an internal inquiry into the practical defence lessons to be learnt, but I am sceptical about a longer far ranging inquiry. To my mind, the Falkland Islands dispute occurred for the simple reason that a Fascist dictator embarked on an external operation to take his people's minds away from their internal sorrows. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, therefore, deserves considerable credit for the way in which the task force was dispatched.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the relations of the 255 Service men who died in the South Atlantic in the discharge of this courageous affair, as well as the country at large, have a right to know why the Government were forced to take such action and who was responsible in the first place?

Mr. Buck: That is a strange attitude. The Second World War occurred because an evil man called Hitler led an evil regime in Germany. We did not have an inquiry into how that war came about. I believe that an inquiry into the Falklands incident will be of little avail. I believe that it occurred because of the evil intent of a Fascist dictator, and we took action to deal with that.
As a result of the Falklands conflict, a Foreign Secretary, who was respected on both sides of the House, resigned because, presumably, he did not advise the early dispatch of the task force. Personally, I am sceptical of the real value of an inquiry of the kind now envisaged. However, it is to take place and, reluctantly, I go along with that decision.

Mr. Duffy: In that event, how did the Labour Government, faced with a similar threat in the autumn of 1978, survive it without going to war?

Mr. Buck: It appears the the Labour Government dispatched a task force, but that no one knew about it. I do not see how they can claim credit for dispatching a force, because, if no one knew about it, it could not have had any influence on the behaviour of the Argentines. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great concern for Navy affairs, but in this case I believe that he is indulging in intellectual gymnasticism.
I have paid tribute to my right hon. Friends. I also pay tribute to our Service chiefs, who directed this affair with great skill and effectiveness. We were lucky to have had Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Terence Lewin, as chief of defence staff. He is a man of enormous perspicacity and dedication. In Service terms, he is ecumenical in character. His whole approach is on a national and inter-Service basis. I do not think that I am in breach of the Official Secrets Act when I say that, during my short spell as Minister responsible for the Navy, he was instrumental in organising the manning of the maritime Harrier. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will be aware, at that time some of the air marshals were frightfully upset about the fact that the Royal Navy seemed to be going back to having fixed wing aircraft, albeit VSTOL. Some admirals were concerned that the whole show should be organised by the Royal Navy and that no part should be played by the Royal Air Force. Admiral Lewin, then vice chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Chief Marshal Smallwood—"Splinters" as he was affectionately known—sorted out the problem in no time at all. As a result, primary training on the Harriers was and is carried out by the Royal Air Force, which had larger numbers, and command and control at sea was the responsibility of the Royal Navy. It was a successful and sensible mix.
That is the character of Admiral Lewin. He sorted out that intractable and difficult problem straight away. The most outstanding part of the overall success story of the Falklands has been the operation of the Harriers, and both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy should be proud of that.
We should also pay tribute to others, such as the Commander of the Fleet and the First Sea Lord, who guided the operation in a most successful manner.
It is invidious to single out a group, but, as the smallest component in our armed force, I should mention the Royal Marines. We are indebted to them for their expertise in the field and to that of General Moore who led the armed forces on the ground. The right hon. Member for Deptford nods agreement. I am pleased that we did not truncate the number of Royal Marines, as was intended at one time.
We have lost many ships—too many. They must and will be replaced. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say what is to happen about replacing HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid" which, although their lives are to be extended, should be replaced in due course because of their age. A decision must be taken. The utility of this class of ship was amply demonstrated during the Falklands campaign.
I turn to what some would have us believe is a side issue—our nuclear deterrent. I quarrel with Labour Members who say that a lesson of the Falklands campaign is that we should contract out of a nuclear deterrent. I take the reverse view. One has only to adjust the Falklands scenario slightly to see how valuable it is for us to have a nuclear deterrent. Although a second-class power, Argentina is nevertheless powerful and it could well have chosen to develop a low-grade nuclear weapon. In a few

years, a second-class power such as Argentina could well have a nuclear weapon, albeit not sophisticated. If we did not have our own nuclear weapons, we should be in grave difficulties.

Mr. John Silkin: In the Trident debate on 29 March, I said:
If the United States thought that we would use Trident this week, anywhere—in the South Atlantic, for example—in a way which might involve the United States, would we be allowed to use it? Of course we should not."—[Official Report, 29 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 24.]
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Buck: I profoundly disagree. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say whether he thinks I am right. The essence of the Nassau agreement, on which the understanding with the United States originally rested, was that Polaris—which was the subject of the Nassau agreement—was to be routinely deployed to NATO, but that, in a matter of supreme national importance, we would have the right to deploy it by ourselves. My right hon. Friend will confirm that position about Polaris and that the understanding is to be extended to Trident. My right hon. Friend is indicating agreement, so the right hon. Member for Deptford is wrong. I am surprised that, as the principal Opposition spokesman on defence, he should be wrong on such a fundamental issue.
It is important that we make it clear to the nation that a campaign such as that in the South Atlantic shows that it is useful and right for us to have a nuclear weapon under our control. Far from the Falklands providing an argument against our having a nuclear deterrent—Trident—events have made the case for an independent nuclear deterrent stronger than ever. The effectiveness of our hunter-killer submarines was made clear by the fact that the Argentine fleet dared not put to sea. I hope that the dockyard capacity that is to be retained will be sufficient to deal with the slightly larger numbers of hunter-killer as well as Trident submarines.
It is a pleasure to speak in a Navy debate. What has happened shows that we can, as always, be proud of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and all our Armed Forces. However, I am a little worried about the structure of the Royal Marines, because it is a small and distinguished corps. It produces outstanding officers. There should be a further avenue upwards so that the commandant-general can go on to become a member of the Admiralty Board or possibly chief of the defence staff. There should be further opportunities to help the career structure of Royal Marines officers because they richly deserve it.
We pay tribute to the Royal Navy. We should make certain, together with some Labour Members, that the Government remain loyal to their pledge to ensure that the Royal Navy remains the third most powerful but, as it always has been and I hope always will be, the best Navy in the world.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: This is the first time that I have spoken since you moved to your new post in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, as a fellow West Country Member, I am pleased for you. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who is a mild enough man in private life, delivered a machine gun-like speech. He was very belligerent, although I do not complain about that.
Bristol is still a great port, although not a naval port, and the area has made considerable contributions over a long period to our weapons systems industries. As I do not always speak in defence debates, perhaps I might be permitted a reflection about the past two world wars, as they are called. I do not remember much about the First World War, but I remember a great deal about the Second World War. Unlike the Falklands conflict, those wars were fought largely but not entirely, of course, in the seas and skies around and above the United Kingdom or across the Channel and fighting men and civilians were directly involved together.
Incidentally, I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Member for Colchester was so worried about an inquiry into the Falklands conflict. As he said, the Foreign Secretary, who was regarded even by his political opponents as talented and competent, resigned. When a Foreign Secretary and other Ministers resign in such circumstances, it must mean that something is wrong or is thought to be wrong. Far from the resignation of the Foreign Secretary being a justification for not conducting an inquiry, I should have thought exactly the opposite to be the case, but I do not wish to take that matter any further now.
The difference between the last world war and the Falklands conflict is that dangers in the Falklands were being accepted and risks were being run by proxy at a great distance. The obligation of the nation and the House to determine the true size of and the right balance between the Armed Forces and, above all, the equipment that is appropriate to the task in hand is therefore the greater because the Armed Forces were acting as a proxy on behalf of the nation.
Then arises the parallel difficulty to find the necessary money when all the pressures of a democracy in so-called peacetime are for higher standards of living, both private and public. It is understandable that an increasing number of people, especially the younger generation, ask how we can always find money for war, for tanks, battleships, planes and bombs but not for peace, for schools, hospitals and houses.
Nobody asked how we paid for the war between 1939 and 1945 because it was obvious—the nation's standard of living was reduced to the bare necessities. As the Americans found in Vietnam, wars and possible wars are harder to finance when only part of the nation is directly involved. It would be shocking and shameful if, in the light of the Falklands experience, Britain depended on the courage, determination and professionalism of our forces to make up for the deficiencies in equipment. Much of the equipment that was sent to the Falklands was good, especially the short take-off Harrier aeroplanes and the Sea Wolf missiles. Nevertheless, there were serious deficiencies. I remember raising in an Adjournment debate the fears of experts at British Aerospace Filton near Bristol that Sea Wolf might not have a future, which seems absurd now.
One serious deficiency was the sending of a modern fleet to war without its own long-range radar eyes. There were other deficiencies in the ships' defence systems. The cost, weight and available space in a ship often means that only a few missiles can be carried. There is bound to be a relationship between the size and design of a ship and the missiles that it carries. The easy solution for an attacker is to use several planes in an assault on the ship. The Argentines did that. Their pilots showed great courage but

the air losses involved in such a strategy were considerable. However, aeroplanes are extremely cheap compared to the cost of battleships. I hope that the Ministry is now thinking about that challenge.
Extraordinary circumstances led to the loss of HMS "Sheffield". The Exocet missile that hit her was nor seen, in spite of her electronic equipment. Reports said that it was seen only by those on the deck a matter of split seconds before it struck. It was not seen by the radar. If it had been, presumably a Sea Dart intercepting missile could have been dispatched. That matter should also be thoroughly investigated.
Apparently, due to the bad timing of the Exocet's fuses—to describe it primitively—the missile did not explode inside the "Sheffield" but the driving motor burned so fiercely that oil was ignited and the rest of the ship caught fire. The destruction of the ship by fire in those circumstances is not easy to understand until one remembers that electric cables in those ships have a type of plastic insulation that is highly inflammable. I have had experience of those matters as a power supply engineer. There is a vast amount of cabling in the control system of a modern warship.
I am told that when a discarded ship is used for target practice it is stripped of its cabling to save money. Presumably the cabling is sold for scrap. I should have thought that the cabling installation should be left on the ship to see what effect the sham battle has on it.
The list of deficiences could be extended and the Falklands experience has revealed the problem of how to pay for an up-to-date Navy that is fully and properly equipped. That problem cannot be answered without a new assessment of our role in NATO. Either NATO must assume a new world role in the South Atlantic, or Britain's special sea-going capability should be recognised within NATO.
I cannot believe for a moment that the Americans, especially under President Reagan, would welcome NATO involvement in the South Atlantic. I am aware that the present American Administration gave Britain useful backing in the Falklands, but it is still full of the idea that it must be on the friendliest terms with Latin America in spite of the questionable regimes that flourish there. I cannot believe that the Americans would welcome NATO involvement in South American waters.
As has already been said, just because a war incident has recently occurred, it must not be assumed that it will happen again in the same circumstances. The Falklands conflict may yet prove to have been a one-off event. It is obvious, however, that the United Kingdom's naval forces will now have a responsibility in the South Atlantic for a long time to come.
I have come to the conclusion that Britain must strengthen its conventional forces in all directions. I am not alone. Many eminent people who know far more on this matter than I or even the Government Front Bench know have come to the same conclusion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate so well, spoke as if there were a difference between wars fought by Britain at a distance, to which we were perhaps more suited, and wars fought on the Continent. From my knowledge of history, I cannot remember many European wars in which we have not been involved in one way or another, so there is not necessarily any contradiction between the two responsibilities. We must strengthen our conventional forces in


all directions—on the European Continent and on the high seas—to deal with what once again appears to be a world role. Certainly it is greater than that of any other NATO power except the United States.
To meet the cost, I think—I put it no more strongly—that less emphasis should be placed on nuclear weapons. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Trident project should be reviewed. I do not suggest that we should not retain some nuclear capacity, but I doubt whether we can carry the cost of both. Of course, mistakes can be made with nuclear weapons—whether they be srategic or tactical weapons—by those responsible for operating them, but I am yet to be convinced that any nation will risk mankind's destruction by being the first to use strategic nuclear missiles. If nuclear war occurs, I think that it will arise from the escalation of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
So I suspect that there is no escape from the need to modernise and strengthen our conventional forces, particularly at sea, and to adjust our nuclear contribution to defence accordingly. I have mentioned eminent people outside the House who understand and have experienced such matters. Lord Carver strongly emphasised that point in a recent letter to The Times. Henry Stanhope, The Times defence correspondent, put my argument very well indeed in a recent article entitled
Now Nat has to take on the task force.
He said:
But the biggest argument over the next few months is likely to be centred on Trident. Support for the Government's decision to buy the D-5 missile to replace Polaris in the 1980s has been looking thin for some time. The recent demonstration of firepower by our conventional forces will have encouraged, however irrationally
—I give away the word "irrationally"—
the argument that they, rather than our nuclear forces, should benefit most from Britain's stretched resources.
I merely say to those Ministers responsible for the Navy and to others in the ministerial defence complex that they should not be so sure of themselves in this matter as they now seem to be. They should not always look to manifesto percentages. I appreciate that they can quote with some mathematical exactitude the outcome of my party's election statements. Nevertheless, they are I hope political realists and know that there is always a gap between what is said in manifestos and what has to be done by Governments. That applies to Governments of all parties, by the way.
There is a great deal more to that nuclear versus conventional argument than the Government seem to think, and they might be glad of it in the end, because it is they who have to supervise the accounts and defend the bills when these come in for the taxpayers to meet.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am sure that all hon. Members fully associate themselves with the remarks of the Minister of State about the epic nature of the Falklands operation and his tribute to the skill, courage and professionalism of our Armed Forces. I do not think that it is possible to add to the tributes that have rightly been paid to the achievements in the South Atlantic in the past few months.
I shall not deal in any way with matters that are properly before the committee of inquiry that is now sitting. I also

agree that many detailed points about the lessons to be learnt from the Falklands operations, at least with, regard to sophisticated defence equipment, are best left until we have the statement in the autumn.
Meanwhile, as the Secretary of State himself has recognised, some matters are already clear and go well beyond the conduct of the Falklands campaign. Events in the South Atlantic did not create the doubts about the proposed cuts in the Royal Navy. They merely confirmed them. Like all Conservative Members who have spoken so far, I welcome the change of heart already shown by the Secretary of State. The "Invincible" is not to be sold. When I first heard the suggestion that it might be sold, I thought that I might earn myself a few necessary Brownie points by supporting the Government, so I asked what I thought would be a helpful question inviting the Prime Minister to deny the ugly rumour. The House can imagine my astonishment when it was confirmed. The "Endurance" is also to continue in service, more Sea Harriers are to be provided, three destroyers that were to be disposed of are to be retained and new orders are coming forward.
So far so good, but all that is not enough. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will have regard to some of the interventions that were made in my right hon. Friend's opening speech to the effect that many of us feel that the new orders should come forward quickly and should not be delayed until the autumn White Paper.
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened for the Opposition, in his hope that, in all circumstances, the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor" should be built in the United Kingdom. I suggest that it should be built on Tyneside, as was the original vessel.
The Secretary of State has shown some of the wisdom of hindsight in the past few weeks, but others showed the wisdom of foresight. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) to his constituents at the Tenterden Conservative Association meeting on 15 May 1981 in particular repays careful reading. I could not understand why the views that he expressed were not Government policy at that time. Certainly it is now clear that they should have been Government policy and that they must become Government policy. We all know that there is no justice in politics. If there were, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford would be on the Government Front Bench today.
In the 1979 election manifesto, the Conservative Party said that one of the principal tasks of a Conservative Government would be
To strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.
Not all the proposed naval cuts have yet been withdrawn. I hope that this stage will be reached. It must be seen, looking back, that a proposed cut of something like 12 per cent. in naval manpower, amounting to 8,000 to 10,000 men, could not conceivably be described as strengthening our defences. The loss of the aircraft carriers could not be described as strengthening our defences. Like all Conservative Members, I welcome the decision to have three carriers, so enabling two always to be on mission. The right hon. Member for Llanelli and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked why they were needed. I would have thought that this had been made clear on frequent occasions. We need them to screen American strike carriers in the eastern Atlantic


where they have a major role. We need them to protect our merchant ships. We need them to fulfil our commitments to Norway. One is needed to provide a flagship using comprehensive command equipment and communications systems for a task force operating east of Suez. They have many roles that have been explained by Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Hill-Norton, and others in the past. I am very glad that the Government have changed their mind.

Mr. Grimond: This is also clear to me. I follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It seems strange, however, that the carriers were not necessary three or four months ago but have now become necessary. That is the point.

Mr. Rippon: I do not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that they are necessary. I am glad therefore that the Government have changed their mind. The role is clear. That has been made evident by others more competent to speak on the matter than myself.
It is clear that the proposed loss of 17 destroyers and frigates with their embarked helicopters—we are, happily, to have more helicopters—could not be explained as strengthening our anti-submarine capability in the Atlantic. So far so good. A number of lessons have been learnt for which many Conservative Members are grateful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), in a powerful speech, referred to technological change, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. One of the hardest lessons learnt in the South Atlantic is that the anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft defence systems were inadequate. We also lacked an effective airborne early warning system.
In the changed circumstances, the Secretary of State, I hope, will see that the Treasury is not allowed, as it has done so often in the past, to delay the development of modern weapons although the need for them has been established. I used to have some responsibility for dealing with matters related to guided weapons and electronic counter-measures. These are, I suppose, protected under the 30-year rule, and I must not say much about them. But the biggest item in much of our defence expenditure is, I believe, the cost of Treasury delay. A battle with the Treasury has to be fought over and over again. The Treasury never gives up. It always comes back. It has done more, probably, than any single organisation to undermine the defence and economic strength of this country—much more than the Foreign Office.
I must not, however, be diverted. The prime characteristic of modern weapons is that they are highly lethal. They are now approaching the stage where, if a target can be seen or detected, it can be hit. Herein lies the growing importance of electronic countermeasures to which the Soviet Union has for a long time given high priority. I know that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is seized of the importance of the matter. He talked frequently about it when the Conservative Party was in opposition. Against this background, it cannot be disputed that naval strategy and tactics, including convoy techniques, have to be reviewed in the context of the detection and tracking of surface vessels and their vulnerability to a growing range of target—locating and sea—skimming missiles.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has already said, the emphasis in the future must be placed to a growing extent on the development of a number of

smaller ships in larger quantities. This must be accompanied, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State himself has recognised, by an increasing number of submarines. On the issue of submarines, I am glad that the Government are reviewing the position of Portsmouth dockyard. I believe, however, that my right hon. Friend should also re-examine the future of Chatham. I have read all the powerful speeches on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden). My hon. Friend is not merely making a constituency point, although the closing of any dockyard or defence industry has great repercussions on the economic life of an area. My hon. Friend's argument is essentially a national one.
The closure of Chatham will remove a nuclear submarine refitting yard, which is essential, I believe, to the further expansion of the nuclear submarine force. It will eliminate essential conventional facilities and a command support base critical to our reinforcements routes to Europe. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton had to say about the importance of bases generally.
The House should know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham told the House on 22 July 1981, that Admiral Sir William Pillar, then Chief of Fleet Support, who therefore had to choose his words carefully, had told the Select Committee in 1980 that he would not pretend that a proposal to close the Chatham dockyard facilities would be without risk. I do not believe that we should take that risk.
The House will recall that the then Secretary of State for Defence gave in August 1980 a firm commitment—there is no other way to describe it—that the four home dockyards would be required and maintained and that there was more than sufficient work to keep them occupied for the foreseeable future. I welcomed warmly the defence White Paper of 1980 and the policies enunciated by the then Secretary of State for Defence. I could not, and did not, do so last year. It was rumoured, although, of course, I know nothing of these matters, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was removed from the Ministry of Defence because he would not bend the knee to the Treasury's demands. I can only say that I hope that my right hon. Friend is now in a stronger position to carry on this battle with the Treasury and his weaker brethren in the Cabinet. They are the wets on this matter.
The danger is that, by cutting naval forces and their support facilities, we are adopting what is in effect a short war policy; that is, a war of only a few days. I noted with interest the intervention of my right hon. Friend in which he remarked that he was not saying that all the danger existed on the central front in Europe, that he was not saying it would only be a short war but that it might be. What worries me is that the thrust of our defence strategy now is on the basis of a short war. That is dangerous.
I support the Trident programme. I do not believe, however, that it can be regarded as an alternative to adequate conventional forces. The Opposition think differently. One has to face the fact, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said, that over the longer period the cost of Trident is 3 per cent. of our defence budget. One danger of dealing with the Treasury is that it likes the nuclear option because it is cheaper—not because it is more expensive. In order to achieve cuts in next year's budget, the Treasury allows expenditure that it hopes to stop at a later date.
The Secretary of State, in his forward—the only up-to-date part of this year's defence White Paper—says:
The events of recent weeks must not, however, obscure the fact that the main threat to the security of the United Kingdom is from the nuclear and conventional forces of the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies?
The critical question is where that threat lies. In my view, which, I think, is shared by some of my hon. Friends, the threat is global. It is no longer confined to NATO's central front. The greatest danger lies in the areas of vital interests such as the oil-producing regions of the Middle East and the raw material sources of Southern and Central Africa. We may not be able to amend the North Atlantic Treaty to abolish the now meaningless boundary Imitations represented by the Tropic of Cancer, but the remorseless march of events, such as the growth of the Soviet blue water navy—the extent of which is enormous, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton pointed out—Afghanisatan, and the anarchy in Iran, mean that the Alliance is inevitably committed to defending its interests worldwide.
We cannot do everything, but I believe that we are right, by history and geography, to make the maritime role our priority. Whatever contribution we can make to the central forces in NATO, it does not override the priority that we owe to ourselves and the United States of America in the eastern Atlantic.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who deals with procurement matters is one of the members of the Government who showed great wisdom and foresight in Opposition. I should have liked to write this into the record as one can in the United States of America, but I can only commend his pamphlet published by the Conservative Political Centre in 1976, called "Towards a new Defence Policy", in which he says:
If we fail to realign our defence effort to the challenge that is now being presented, then we will pay the price at some stage in the 1980s.
We in Britain have a lot to lose. Our offshore resources could be attacked, the vital sea routes on which we depend for half our food and raw materials could be cut, (The Russians already have more than three times the number of German U-boats that paralysed Allied shipping in World War II) and Western Europe could be 'finlandised' without, paradoxically enough, the use of the much vaunted military machine on the central front".
I gave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary notice that I was going to quote him, as is proper on these occasions. Later, he said:
If it is agreed that Britain should significantly increase its naval presence and maintain the RAF contribution in Germany, the next question is to ask whether there is any particular magic about the number of 55,000 men stationed in BAOR.
He points out our treaty obligations, about which we know, the fact that we have lost our support costs, and suggests that we might renegotiate the position with West Germany and our allies. If we have to make some reduction, it should be there rather than in our maritime force.
No less penetrating is the book my hon. Friend wrote with Mr. James Bellini entitled "A New World Role for the Medium Power", an extract from which is published, for those who wish to read it, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in "Survival" in September-October 1977. He describes how
the post-war record in defence planning has been one of defence options sacrificed for non-defence reasons".

He goes on to explain that, while economics play their part, it frequently happens that the Treasury argument is translated into a bogus strategic reason.
Of course, we have to put a price on defence. How do we do that? Here again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I hope that his view remains the same as when he said:
The difficulty about defence expenditure is that no one can ever say what is the correct level. While it is not being suggested that Britain has at the moment no defences, we are not by any means adequately defended and the public would be horrified if they knew the real truth. Any responsible Government should aim to get its defence expenditure up to a level where it feels happy with the ability of its forces not only to deter but to contend with a threat, and then hold expenditure steady allowing for inflation. There is no sensible way in which such a task can be approached within an arbitrary percentage of GNP or even a global cash figure.
Other spending departments will howl and cabinet ministers in any government will fight their departmental corners, but defence is not about spectacles, or teeth, or schools, or roads, or pensions or housing, it is about survival.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is right, and I hope that he will prevail in those battles against some of his less forceful and sensible colleagues.
The Conservative Party and Government cannot claim to be strengthening our defences if all they are doing is to maintain the Labour Party's commitment to a real annual increase of 3 per cent. If there has to be a guideline, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who spoke in one of the earlier defence debates, that it should be 4 per cent. That is not a figure plucked out of the air; it is the considered view of the Supreme Allied Commander in NATO, General Rogers. I believe—I think this is confirmed by the response to the Falklands crisis—that the British people will be ready to bear whatever cost is necessary to ensure that we are adequately defended.
As the Prime Minister said in a notable speech in Brussels on 23 June 1978—I have kept this fading copy for all these years:
Our first duty to freedom is to defend our own. Defence must be our first consideration. As we have seen in Britain and elsewhere, there are always politicians ready to neglect defence in favour of other expenditure which is more immediately rewarding and which they suppose will therefore be more popular. I believe that such politicians underestimate those whom they represent.
I think so, too.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I wish to associate myself at the outset with those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have paid tribute to our Servicemen in their magnificent victory in the Falklands. I never doubted the outcome, because I have been fortunate enough in recent years to encounter the professionalism and morale that I believe characterise our Servicemen to as great a degree as can be found in any Services in the world.
Some of our American friends, including some of their most distinguished commanders, believe that no other country could have shown such a high level of professionalism and morale. That, allied to the tactical direction of the forces by the commanders, in whom we were most fortunate, were the decisive factors. It is sometimes difficult to believe, after reading the press, that we had such a distinguished victory, one that in global terms was worth more than 100 World Cup victories. Some of the press is niggardly towards our Service


men—from the task force commander, Rear-Admiral John Woodward, through his captains in the various ships, General Moore, Brigadier Thompson, the individual marines and paratroopers, to members of the mercantile marine. If we continued to acknowledge their feat for a long time, we should still not have paid them the tribute that they deserve.
I have argued repeatedly in the defence debates, in which I have been fortunate enough to be called, that we are not sufficiently aware as a country even now that we are a member of an Alliance, and that the most sensible and cost-effective policy for that Alliance is to employ resources on the basis of a division of tasks. We do not specialise enough. It is clearly more sensible for countries such as West Germany, which have abundant expertise in the geography of Central Europe, to concentrate on the central front.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) argued that the role for the United Kingdom, with its maritime edge, is to maintain the lead at sea. It cannot be said too often that Britain is ideally placed to do that, adjacent to the Greenland—Iceland—United Kingdom gap. We would bear the brunt of North Atlantic operations in the early stages of a war. We could do more. We could provide defence in depth against a maritime threat and support for the northern flank of Norway, as well as preserving the sea lanes for communication, reinforcement and supply. But in his 1981 defence review the Secretary of State took steps that will leave Britain dangerously deficient at sea by the end of the decade.
NATO's sea power, which exists primarily to keep open commercial sea lanes for the world, is tightly stretched. British naval losses in the South Atlantic of four ships sunk and 12 damaged can only add to the burden. But the Secretary of State has chosen this time to cut the fleet. In the financial year 1982–83 the strength of the Royal Navy will continue to decline. One SSN, three destroyers, one frigate and two mine countermeasure vessels, all ordered by the Labour Government, will join the fleet. But 17 ships, including one SSN, two destroyers and four frigates, are listed for sale or scrap. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham has been the only speaker to mention that so far. In the past fortnight, we have been told that three destroyers—"Bristol", "Glamorgan" and "Fife"—will be retained. But they cannot be run on beyond four or, at the most, five years; for example, their missile systems will be inadequate.
But the Russian naval forces that we face have in the past year increased the number of anti-ship missiles with a range of over 120 miles from 130 to 350. As The Economist observed, those missiles make Exocet look like a dinky toy. The number of major surface ships in the Soviet fleet has dropped by one to 52, and it has improved its missile capability dramatically. Its force of hunter-killer submarines available for service in the East Atlantic has risen from 83 to 85, while the total in NATO's navy has dropped from 71 to 43. There is a growing belief that some of the Soviet SSNs will soon be deployed in the South Atlantic. A Soviet SSN base in West Africa which has haunted our thoughts for many years may soon become a reality.
Although in part the reductions in Western strength represent the diversion of American naval forces to the Gulf, there is no escaping the fact of the increasingly desperate plight of NATO's naval defences. Poignantly,

it is only in carriers that NATO continues to enjoy an edge over the Warsaw Pact; yet the Secretary of State also sought to make cuts in our carrier strength. He has now had second thoughts. But as recently as 23 February., when we had spirited exchanges from both sides of the House with the Secretary of State about the importance of our carrier strength End the fact that it should be in excess of the two, he stated:
I do not believe that any Government of either party would order ASW carriers today —[Official Report, 23 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 735.]
If the Secretary of State believes that he can palm "Hermes" on to the Australians he is in for a surprise. He might get away with the lease of an Invincible class carrier. He should put in hand another Invincible order with Swan Hunter. That is the news that both sides of the House wish to hear. We are united in the belief that we need more than two carriers. But we shall only gel them if we honour our obligations to the Australians and to our Navy. Perhaps we can do a package deal with the Australians if we get the order for another Invincible class carrier.
I am not merely taunting the Secretary of State for changing his mind about the carrier. He is beginning to retreat a little—he will have to retreat a good deal more—from his 1981 defence review. Why did he persist with too much of it in the form and content of the 1982 estimates? Why is he still intent on cutting our naval strength even in face of the ever-growing Soviet maritime threat? Why is he abandoning naval yards such as Cammell Laird on Merseyside, Swan Hunter on Tyneside and Vosper at Southampton? They have served Britain well for generations.
The Secretary of State has sought to conceal the facts to still the doubts increasingly voiced on the Conservative Benches. I cannot see any orders for surface ships, certainly in the forecast period, that will take up the capacities of yards other titan Yarrow on the Clyde and Vickers at Barrow. I cannot see where Swan Hunter, Cammell Laird and Vosper will be employed. We need more information than we have been given this afternoon. Where will the orders for three ships a year that the Minister mentioned go?
By dint of selective quotations in party handouts, to which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) referred in the previous defence debate, the Secretary of State tried to show that last year's defence review had given the Navy more money, better capability and so on. That will not do. Like the defence review, that PR exercise was a con trick—a catalogue of half truths. On 7 April, the Secretary of State stated:
we cannot be criticised for cutting back the conventional Navy when it is far larger today than it was when we took office, and so it will be in the late 1980s."—[Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1050.]
That is not true for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) laid bare in a powerful speech.
New ships are entering service, but, as the Secretary of State admitted to me in the House last month, almost overwhelmingly, and for the reasons that my right hon. Friend described, that is as a result of orders placed by the Labour Government. That is precisely why we were able to deploy for the Falklands so quickly and effectively. We were living on the fat of the pre-1981 defence review, thanks to the Labour Government.
The Falklands campaign typically demonstrated the flexibility of maritime power, by its presence and the wide range of options that it offers diplomacy. Without waiting for the official technical assessment of the campaign, many important implications for the Royal Navy have emerged. Some have been discussed; I wish to refer to others. In combination, on balance, they further invalidate the 1981 review. The more important points that emerge from the tentative assessment of the campaign include the vulnerability of surface ships to mass saturation air attacks. However, it should be borne in mind that the damaged ships stood up to punishment remarkably well and most stayed afloat.
There must be more emphasis on battle and sea worthiness and less on comforts. We must look more closely at Soviet experience and even at 1939–1945 German experience. Ships last about twice as long as their weapons and electronic systems. It is, therefore, cheaper to refit ships than to build new ones. I hope that the Defence Secretary will consider that.
We must not forget the urgency of airborne early warning. We need a better balance between the active and passive effects of early warning and ASW sonar. There is the vindication of the Sea Harrier concept and the need for more effective surface-to-air missiles and associated fire-control systems. We must remember the requirement for naval point defence weapons. Ships must be provided with close-in defence against anti-ship surface-skimming missiles. A gun system such as Seaguard and not merely Phalanx is as necessary as Sea Wolf. Sea skimmers will not remain skimmers, as evidenced by the mode of the Sub-Harpoon.
There is the need to revise warship construction methods and use of materials to reduce fire hazard. Firefighting techniques and equipment must be updated. It is difficult to accept that only recently the Government considered closing HMS "Phoenix", our damage control centre. We must have confirmation of the value of naval gunfire support for shore bombardment. There is a need for more than a single 4·5 inch gun on most ships and more anti-aircraft guns on all ships.
We must remember the requirement for shipborne and airborne jammers and anti-radiation missiles for use against aircraft, ships and ground-based radars. Is it true that only two to three weeks before the Falklands crisis the Navy turned down a jammer which could have integrated with electronic warfare equipment? The present equipment is not capable of a quick reaction.
We must remember the great importance of well-trained special forces such as the SBS and the SAS. We must have confirmation that the Royal Marines retain their amphibious role, as well as that of helicopter assault, and that the Royal Navy has its armed amphibious ships to permit that. The significance of the joint operation of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force from carriers must be accepted. The value in flexibility of the mercantile marine and the need to persuade the United States to go ahead with the Arapaho project must be accepted.
If we act on the lessons of the Falklands and correct the specific deficiencies in the Royal Navy's defences, British ships will be less vulnerable. The Navy will then survive a fiercer air war than was fought over the Falklands. It could operate alone on the doorstep of most countries and could even operate effectively against the Soviet Union in

places where Russian aircraft fly at extreme range in limited numbers. I am talking about the Royal Navy acting alone and not in its NATO role.
The Falklands conflict confirms, rather than undermines, the invaluable role of sea power in projecting military force in unpredictable places across vast distances. That confirms the confidence that I expressed in the House at the outset of the crisis in the Royal Navy's capability to do precisely what it did—and it did it brilliantly.
That is what the Navy did on its own in the vicinity of the Falklands and what it can do elsewhere. In the Navy's more likely and assigned NATO role the Service is indispensable. Its nuclear-powered submarines will exercise an outstanding deterrent effect against surface warships. Invincible class carriers, working ahead of major United States carrier battle groups, will fill a key ASW role in countering the Soviet submarine threat. The Falklands conflict has demonstrated that the Sea Harrier-light carrier concept is sound in the NATO context. But will Britain be able to muster the requisite number of surface warships to fulfil her obligations in the North Atlantic and out of the area?
It is not enough for the Defence Secretary to justify his 1981 defence review on the ground that the arrival of shore-based high performance aircraft with precision guided surface skimming missiles, as well as nuclear powered submarines with almost unlimited mobility and concealment, has profoundly altered sea-air strategy. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to tell us, as he did this afternoon, that he is not dedicated to the notions of short war. Some of us are convinced that he is.
We take nothing away from the Secretary of State when we say that, but we recall all his utterances in the House and we believe that we know our man and what goes on in his mind. I am in no doubt that he is a short war scenario man, a submarine and maritime patrol aircraft man and a Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap man. He believes that he can bottle up the Soviet Navy. He may be right, but I believe that that is a high-risk strategy and that we should not put too many of our eggs in one basket. Therefore, we should have more surface ships.
At that point my right hon. and hon. Friends divide from the Secretary of State and I know of no one on his side of the House who supports him in his belief that we can cut our surface strength and invest more heavily in sub-surface strength and maritime patrol aircraft. It is not enough for the Defence Secretary to continue too far with his 1981 defence review on the ground that the sea-air strategy has changed.
As Vice-Admiral Sir Ian McGeoch warned in a letter to The Times a fortnight ago, the power of surface warships to fight both aircraft and submarines should not be underestimated, nor should it be overlooked that
come what may, the shipping which has to be protected moves on the surface".
It is not enough for the Secretary of State to claim that he is going sub-surface. He has ordered only two submarines in three years. He would do well to squeeze one more out of existing capacity before it is commandeered by Trident.
The Defence Secretary's goal should be a balanced and interdependent force of escort vessels and other surface units, as well as nuclear-powered submarines and maritime patrol aircraft—all capable of providing ocean


operations support groups in a NATO context. Increasingly it appears that we shall have to allow for the possibility of providing for that in an out-of-area role.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that I have a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who hope to speak. Short speeches will mean that fewer hon. Members are disappointed.

Sir Paul Bryan: I shall devote my short intervention to the role of the Merchant Navy, a service which should be ranked on a par with the other three Services in that in a time of war all four are equally interdependent.
I declare an interest, although a very indirect one, in that I am a director of an insurance company which is owned by a shipping group, the C. Y. Tung group.
At the beginning of the Falklands crisis, the nation—indeed the world—was astonished not only at the speed with which the naval task force was assembled and dispatched but at the ease with which we appeared to be able to assemble a large supporting armada of merchant ships of the most varied type—passenger liners, tankers, minesweepers, tugs, ferry boats, roll-on/roll-off ships, general cargo ships and specialist ships—and all these in addition to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The speed with which these ships were modified for war with the addition of heli-decks and so on was remarkable and a tribute to the work teams.
After the Falklands conflict, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, the commander-in-chief of the Fleet, said:
I cannot say too often or too clearly how important has been the Merchant Navy's contribution to our efforts. Without the ships taken up from trade, the operation could not have been undertaken, and I hope this message is clearly understood by the British nation.
After the many newspaper articles and television features on the adventures of the "QE2", the "Canberra", the "Atlantic Conveyor" and the scores of merchant ships in the war zone, the British nation has undoubtedly got the message. What we in the House want to know is the Government's reaction to the message.
Over the coming months, surely there must be an all-embracing review covering an up-to-date examination of the strength and makeup of the Merchant Navy, the need for protection in times of war, the use of merchant ships to support and augment the fighting fleet, the defence characteristics which should be built into or added to the merchant ships and the means of paying for such, the manpower issue and the liaison arrangements on various levels to ensue a continuing exchange of knowledge and experience. We hope that the White Paper that we shall be getting shows that all these factors have been investigated deeply.
The reduction and the rapidly changing makeup of our Merchant Navy and of the other NATO merchant fleets make one doubt whether our Merchant Navy would have the capacity in a few years' time to carry out again the brilliant operation which we have been admiring over these past months.
A main point of worry must be the decline of the merchant fleets available to the West in time of war. At such times, one cannot depend on ships from Greece or

sailing under flags of convenience. Such ships may not in practice prove to be available, and undoubtedly there would be crew problems on those ships.
The United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined since 1975 from 50 million tonnes to 29 million tonnes—a loss of tonnage of more than 40 per cent. Within that figure, we have lost a number of cargo liners and other ships which would have been most valuable to the country in time of war.
We are also losing trained seafaring power. In 1975, Merchant Navy officers numbered 41,000: in 1982, 28,000. In 1975, United Kingdom ratings numbered 38,000: in 1982, 26,000. All the betting must be on this decline continuing and very probably continuing at the same disastrous speed. Surely we have now to think of this problem not merely in terms of economic or employment aspects of the shipping industry but in this role of the fourth arm of defence.
The danger of the Merchant Navy becoming incapable of carrying out its role in time of war has been threatening for years. On the figures that I have just given, we have a right to hear from the Government either a reassurance that the matter is less critical than it appears—and one will need a lot of supporting evidence to be convinced of that—or an assurance that the Government recognise the imminent danger and shortly will be announcing practical measures to meet it.
There is also an urgent need, in the light of the decline of merchant shipping in most of the countries of NATO, to reassess the likely need in time of war for shipping to carry essential civilian needs, apart from the supply of warlike stores and back-up. In pages 17 to 19 of the White Paper, under the heading "Uses of National Resources", we read of the need for detailed consultation between the shipping industry and the Government about types of merchant ships particularly wanted in time of war with defence features built into them which could be built mainly with industry's money but with some help from the Government. May we be told how these talks are proceeding?
We should also remember that the continued progress towards containerisation presents special problems in time of war. A few well-directed missiles could quickly put out of action the West's main container terminals, such as Rotterdam, Felixstowe, Tilbury and so on. We should then have to rely on emergency anchorages, smaller ports and special means of discharging cargo. Some work has been done on this problem by the industry in conjunction with the Government, but probably not fast enough nor with sufficient funds devoted to it.
I consider that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was right not to produce a new White Paper in the light of the Falklands experience. To be of use, this experience must be studied in detail and without haste. But, apart from lessons to be learnt from experience, the Falklands crisis has rubbed our noses in problems which we knew to be there but were unwilling to face.
Among those problems is the decline of our Merchant Navy and our shipbuilding industry. For all the reasons with which we are familiar, that decline will continue unless the Government intervene in some way.
In shipbuilding, the Government intervene already, for they subsidise the losses of British Shipbuilders. The extent to which we are willing to let shipbuilding decline or run down and the categories of shipbuilding that we are


willing to lose have not been decided. There is no policy. Many of us were surprised to learn a few months ago that our yards can no longer build a luxury liner. At what level shall we retain our capacity to build warships?
The confusion in the public mind is illustrated by the row over the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor". Lord Matthews is accused of a lack of patriotism for his failure to pay out some millions of pounds above the market price to get the ship built in a United Kingdom yard. If the ship can be built in the United Kingdom only with a subsidy, there is no doubt that the Government, not the company, should be called upon to pay. That is exactly what would happen in Germany or France.
As for British shipping, the Falklands episode has shown that it is not merely the size of the merchant fleet but its composition which is all important. As its size diminishes, its composition becomes even more critical.
I finish by repeating the fear that we must all have in the back of our minds. If in seven years' time we are called upon for a "Falklands" operation and if by then we have lost another 40 per cent. of our fleet, as we have done in the past seven years, what position will we be in to face such a situation?

Dr. David Owen: A year ago, when the House debated the cuts in the Royal Navy, there was great apprehension in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Marines. The Royal Navy faced a larger percentage cut than it had ever faced, other than in the 1920s, and the Royal Marines were anxious about what would happen to them when their assault ships were phased out.
We have now had a considerable change of heart. Four ships in the Royal Navy will be retained—HMS "Endurance", HMS "Invincible", HMS "Intrepid" and HMS "Fearless". Those retentions are welcome, though they have very serious implications for the future shape of the Royal Navy.
A great deal has been said about the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance". It was perhaps the most costly decision of the last defence review, because I remain of the belief that that was a fatal trigger in convincing the Argentines that we were not serious about our commitment to the Falkland Islands.
We must learn a lesson from the ability to deploy naval forces. They are a deterrent. They do not always need to be a declared force. The virtue of HMS "Endurance" being in the South Atlantic is its political presence. It is not a major fighting vessel. The grave danger of reducing naval hull numbers and, perhaps more important, not fulfilling what I believe is the utmost priority, which is increasing the availability of submarines, is that one cannot meet the demands of preparatory deployment.
The lesson of the 1977 episode was that sending the hunter-killer submarines was a preparatory deployment. It did not have to be declared. It did not have to be known by Argentina. It had to be ready to be used within an hour's notice in case of an invasion. If we are to deploy worldwide, because of the distances travelled, we have to make preparatory actions and be ready to deploy our naval forces, and then frequently find that they are not needed. That requires numbers.
In fairness to the Secretary of State, it must be said that he took the decision to retain HMS "Fearless" and HMS

"Intrepid" before the Falklands Islands incident. The decision on HMS "Invincible" should be seen in the context of the commitment to "Fearless" and "Intrepid". One of the justifications for the third in the class is that it is a useful addition to an amphibious lift capacity. We saw that in the effectiveness of the Sea Harriers in supporting the land forces.
We must look on the amphibious capability as a major specialised commitment by the United Kingdom. I hope that as a result of the Falklands exercise the Ministry of Defence will not return to the old chestnut about whether there is a future for the Royal Marines. If there was ever a full justification for the Royal Marines, it was the Falkland Islands. We wish to hear no more of the inter-Service rivalry and the question mark over the Royal Marines. They have earned, as they have so often in the past, not just our affection, but our admiration, for their determination, courage and skill. We have rightly paid great tribute to the Special Air Service, but no one should forget the contribution made by the Special Boat Section of the Royal Marines. When that story is told, I am sure that it will strengthen the need for that capacity.
In my view, the amphibious capacity cannot be justified only in the context of Europe and the NATO defence policy. Our decision to have an amphibious capacity is a contribution to a world-wide deployment. That is right, although it is a costly commitment. The justification for HMS "Invincible" can be made on that score.
The way in which the decision on HMS "Invincible" is being made is, in my view, quite disgraceful. After all, the Government told us that they intended to sell it to the Australians a year ago and we have been given no real justification for the reversal of that decision. Nor has there been any serious discussion about what many people believe would have been a more serious option, namely, to let "Invincible" go to the Australians, carry on with HMS "Hermes"—frankly, it is not an attractive option to offer "Hermes" to the Australian Navy—and build another through-deck cruiser, which could be available to replace "Hermes". The great advantage of that deployment would be that we would have a modern compatible "Invincible" with the Australian Navy, able to be deployed in the South Atlantic, and the capacity, with a warm friend and ally, to have three of those vessels at sea at times, and always two.
It is time that we looked at the Royal Navy and the Australian Navy operating together. Never has the generosity and firmness of the Commonwealth been more apparent than during the Falklands campaign. There was the amazing offer by Australia to rescind the previous contractual arrangement. We owe it to our Australian friends to demand more justification from the Government for not taking that more attractive option. It would have the merit of another order for a through-deck cruiser for Tyneside. It would also have the merit of providing a major capacity in the combination of Australia and ourselves. It would give us a useful deployment in an area where we ourselves can never permanently deploy, now that we have rightly come out east of Suez. I hope that we shall be given more justification by the Government for their decision. If the Australians suggest that option, I hope that it will be given serious consideration.
Of course, there will need to be an increased dockyard load capacity. Three extra big ships will need refitting. That requires a decision about Portsmouth. I personally


believe that it would be better to have Portsmouth as a dockyard, not just as a fleet maintenance base. It could expand to meet that capacity.
We have not been told what is to happen to the dockyards. If they are to be reduced, there will need to be improved productivity. We need to be told how that increased productivity is to come about. A decision will have to be taken on whether there is to be a dockyard trading fund. Will we start to treat the dockyards as an integrated industry, or will they have to continue to operate within the rigid bureaucratic framework of the Government's industrial Civil Service, with all the problems of running a major industry? Or will they be given the right to manage? Will the three dockyards, Rosyth, Portsmouth and Devonport, be developed into a modern effective industry?
With that there must be a commitment on wage levels. Dockyards should be in a position to compete and attract the skills that are needed there. They must attract, particularly for nuclear refitting, men of considerable skills who can undertake shift working and working in difficult conditions. The present wages and productivity arrangements in the industry are not satisfactory. I want to know more about how the Government intend to improve productivity. It may be necessary to have some overload to get increased productivity. Many of the procedures need streamlining. Above all, greater independence is needed for dockyard management. That management should not constantly have to refer back, not just to the Ministry of Defence, but endlessly to the Treasury, to be compared with the whole of the Civil Service.
We have had no satisfactory explanation why the Government have not announced immediate orders for type 22s. The decision to replace was welcome, and perhaps in winding up the debate the Minister will tell us why immediate orders were not placed for the four replacements. It may be better to have fewer destroyers and more frigates. I am still worried, as I was a year ago, because 42 frigates and destroyers are insufficient to meet the overall deployment needs. I hope that we shall be given figures of the average out-of-area deployment commitment for frigates or destroyers over the past 10 years, and how the Government intend to meet their NATO commitment with the likely pressure for out-of-area commitment on historic evidencee. There is no evidenc that in the next 20 years there will be fewer demands for out-of-area deployment. If we are to have only frigates, I for one would settle for that.
I share some of the Secretary of State's scepticism about the vulnerability of surface ships, particularly the large ones. They need to be gathered around a grouping of ships in which the "Invincible" class is the fulcrum. They are very vulnerable when they are not deployed in a group.
The real problem which the Government have never faced is that a great deal of their economies could have been justified if they were changing the balance within the Navy. Some of the reductions could have been justified if we were to see an increase in the hunter-killer submarine build rate, but we are not. In fact we are seeing a slowing-down in that rate. We have never yet had a satisfactory explanation of what is to happen to the hunter-killer submarine build rate if Vickers is completely taken up with the Trident submarine programme.
I am opposed to that programme, but I face the reality that it might go ahead if the Government stay in office. It would be extremely damaging if we were then to pay that price, which will be heavy in many other aspects for our conventional forces, and also be forced to reduce even further the number of hunter-killer submarines. How do the Government intend to maintain the hunter-killer submarine build rate?
It is no use talking about the eighteenth submarine when the initial ones are now becoming very old and are having to be phased out. There must be a continuing programme of building hunter-killer submarines if we are to maintain that rate. I believe that 20 submarines is an absolute minimum. All of this is expensive, and it is true to say that in the single Service debates, there is a danger that we do not face the questions of choice.
I am prepared to face that choice. I am prepared to ask questions about the intermediate surface ship, that is, between the frigate and the "Invincible" class. We should make a decision on the matter in the light of the evidence from the Falkland Islands. I do not want to prejudge the matter. We should see whether the benefit of having the Sea Dart is so strong that we feel it is necessary, or perhaps we can find a way of having some area defence missile deployed on frigates. After all, we are moving into new missile technology and we do not necessarily have to use the same technology as before.
Some serious questions in terms of the military aspects will obviously arise as a result of the Falklands inquiry. Many of us will want to examine those carefully. The Government have a responsibility to commence the build-up of the Navy at the earliest possible moment following the sinkings off the Falkland Islands.
It is not enough to wait for another four months. That is an economy measure, but the Government are not admitting as much to the House.
I have another point to make. It is a small matter, but it has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I hope that as a result of this successful combined operation—Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy—we shall see a more flexible attitude in the Ministry of Defence to senior appointments. For example, it is a tragedy that General Moore is being retired. I have felt for some time that some of the exceptional Royal Marine senior officers have never had the recognition that they deserve. I look forward to seeing the day when we have a Chief of Defence Staff who comes from the Royal Marines. When I look at the number of distinguished commandant generals that we have had in the past 20 years, I can think of at least two who would have merited being appointed Chief of Defence Staff. We have a right to demand a fresh examination of this matter.
Tribute has been paid to the present Chief of Defence Staff. I should like to add to that tribute. He is an outstanding officer. We were extremely fortunate to have a naval officer as Chief of Defence Staff during the Falklands crisis. We owe him a great debt. The Government owe him an even greater debt for loyally accepting the cuts in the Navy over the past year. He must have been bitterly opposed to them, yet he put his loyalty and commitment to the Armed Services as a whole first. It is right that the House should pay tribute to his outstanding period of office and, once again, pay tribute to what was by any standards a remarkably successful venture.
I use the word "venture". When we examine the results of the analysis we will discover how close to the knife-edge we were during many of the weeks of the Falkland Islands war. It serves to re-emphasise, if it needed to be done, that some of the decisions of a year ago which resulted from Treasury pressure, and which have been proven in the harshness of war to be wrong, are decisions which we cannot ever again allow to be imposed on such a narrow basis. The House has a responsiblity, which goes across the parties, to refuse to approve the Government's proposals when it thinks that things are going wrong.
In retrospect, all of us must recognise that we ought not to have allowed the previous defence review to go by unchallenged. In a sense, we were to some extent diverted by the argument over Trident. That is a major argument, but the imbalance in the conventional forces, and the imbalance between the three Services, which was the basic flaw in the previous defence debate, went by unchecked. The fact that the Chief of the Naval Staff exercised his right to go to the Prime Minister as frequently as happened during the previous defence review ought to have been taken more seriously by the House.

Sir Patrick Wall: At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) spoke about the ships in the Royal Navy whose retention has already been decided upon. He expressed the view that has been expressed on both sides of the House today, that more of the ships detailed for the scrapheap in the 1981 cuts should be reprieved. He also said that that will have a considerable effect on the Royal Navy in terms of cash and manpower. I believe that the House should discuss this matter in some detail in November.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Royal Navy was a deterrent. That is important. It exists to prevent world war three. Surely that is an insurance worth paying.
Finally, I welcome the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to the Royal Marines and his remarks about the possibility of Royal Marines officers gaining high appointments. We have had one high appointment—AFNORTH—in recent years. The officer appointed to that post filled it with great distinction. Indeed, that is recognised by the Norwegians and all the NATO nations. One must hope that similar jobs will become available to Royal Marines in future.
The Government made a good start when they came to office in 1979. They started immediately by increasing Services' pay and restoring morale, which had become very low. However, last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced serious cuts in all three Services—that must be emphasised—but the Royal Navy suffered worst of all. The Secretary of State has been unfairly blamed for that. The responsibility lies with the Treasury, not with the Ministry of Defence. The Treasury provides the cash. The Secretary of State fought a good fight to obtain all that he could for the three Services. One example has already been mentioned. He managed to find money to reprieve the scrapping of HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid" before the Falkland Islands campaign took place. It is obvious that that campaign could not have taken place without those two ships.
My right hon. Friend also managed to save certain weapon systems which have proved vital and will prove even more vital in future—Sea Eagle, lightweight Sea Wolf and the Sting Ray torpedo.
I wish, first, to deal with the effect on the Royal Navy of the 1981 cuts. It is agreed on both sides of the House that the primary role of the Royal Navy is anti-submarine warfare in the North Atlantic. That is what the Royal Navy is designed for. I know that I carry the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) with me when I say that the Americans were appalled by those cuts. He and I have had a chance to talk to members of the Armed Services Committees of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. We were told quite clearly that the Americans could not replace those ships in EASTLANT, that they had further commitments in the Indian Ocean, and that we were not pulling our weight.
This year I have also had the opportunity to talk to members of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, as a member of this House's Select Committee on Defence. They strongly expressed the view that our antisubmarine forces, especially frigates and destroyers, should be maintained at more or less their present level. They were highly complimentary about the Falkland Islands operation. They hope, as I hope, that that will make all the difference and that we shall not implement anything like the cuts that were announced last year.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe and I attended SACLANT'S Exercise Sealink in Annapolis about four or six weeks ago. It was obvious that SACLANT and the senior naval officers present were extremely worried about the lack of frigates and destroyers in NATO's forces against the vast Soviet nuclear submarine fleet. This is a matter of great importance to Britain, which has twice nearly been defeated by the submarine, and of course, to NATO as a whole.
I take up a remark made by the right hon. Member for Devonport about SSNs. The right hon. Gentleman has always been keen on SSNs. I remember that he put emphasis on the SSNs when he had ministerial responsibilities for the Royal Navy. As I understand it, the Government were planning to have a force of 18 SSNs—one more than the previous Labour Government. However, the Government are scrapping "Dreadnought". That means that the total SSN force will be 17, which was the force that was planned many years ago. There will be no increase. Yet we were told, when the defence cuts were announced for the surface navy, that they would be balanced by an increased SSN force. That has been shown to be a mirage. There was talk also of an increased number of maritime patrol aircraft. There will be an increase of three, because I understand that three aircraft are being taken out of mothballs. Other aircraft had to be used in the AEW role.
As the hon. Member for Attercliffe said, antisubmarine warfare is team work. It needs surface vessels, helicopters, MPA and SSNs. All those ingredients are vital in what may eventually become the third battle of the Atlantic.

Sir Frederick Burden: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read the report of Admiral Cox on operation Ocean Safari, in which he described the Russian diesel electric submarines as "dangerous". Conventional submarines are extremely dangerous as well as SSNs.

Sir Patrick Wall: I accept what my hon. Friend says. However, I believe that we should concentrate on SSNs and leave the Dutch, the Germans and others to concentrate on conventional submarines. I do not believe that we should do both. I am not happy about some of the plans that are being made to try to do both.
Having seen the facilities at Plymouth, I am concerned about the refuelling capabilities of our yards for SSNs. If we are to have 18, I do not believe that refuelling will be able to be carried out only at Plymouth. It is ridiculous to expect the Government to maintain the same number of dockyards now as in the days when we had a vast Royal Navy. I accept that certain yards must go. However, the refuelling capacity at Chatham, which is the most modern in the country, is vital and should, if possible, be retained, even if the rest of the dockyard has to go. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) will agree with me about that.
The second role of the Royal Navy is outside the area of NATO operations. I shall not say much about it as it has already been covered. The Falkland Islands campaign has already been described as a one-off operation. Nevertheless, I remind the House that we depend to a large extent—the dependence of NATO in Europe is even greater—on Persian Gulf oil and Southern African minerals. The supplies of these materials have to be protected. The possibility of amphibious operations, and certainly convoy protection, outside the NATO area has to be borne in mind. It is being borne in mind by SACLANT, and that is another reason why we should retain adequate escort forces in the Royal Navy.
Since the Falkland Islands operation, there have been certain consequences. Both sides of the House have congratulated my right hon. Friend on retaining HMS "Invincible". Many of us have said repeatedly over the past two years that two decks are essential. Indeed, it was one of the lessons learnt in the Second World War. If one deck is damaged and there is no other vessel available, the aircraft have to ditch. It is essential to have two decks. If we want two carriers to be operational, we must have three. I am glad that this has been decided.
I am worried about the time that it will take to build the type 23 frigates. The Secretary of State told us today that the first type 23 will be commissioned in 1988. That is a long time ahead. I should like to see the building time reduced. In its evidence to the Select Committee, British Shipbuilders said that the building time could be reduced by two years. I am glad to hear that the Ministry of Defence is considering something like the Meko system which has been implemented in Germany, which enables ships to be built more quickly. I hope that the Ministry will pursue that line as rapidly as possible. Much more must be done to maintain the number of frigates and destroyers in the Royal Navy. A ship should not be scrapped until it is replaced.
The additional expenditure involved should not be at the expense of Trident. I believe that is the only weapon system that the Soviets fear. I understand from talks in the United States that the offset that has been offered for the D5 will be carried out. It seems that the American Administration are genuine when they say that British firms will be able to contract on an equal basis with American firms for certain aspects of the programme.
Increased expenditure on the Royal Navy should not be at the expense of the Army. We know that BAOR is being cut to 55,000 men. It should not be cut any further. If

further cuts were implemented, we would lose NATO command jobs, which are important to our prestige. It is my opinion that BAOR's equipment is not up to standard in many respects. I shall not develop that argument, but I observe that the ACPs are elderly and that the Select Committee is worried about the lack of air defence for both our armour and thin-skin vehicles.
Similarly, I do not believe that increased expenditure on the Royal Navy should be at the expense of the Royal Air Force. The air defence of Great Britain is essential. The need for Nimrod 3s—the AEW Nimrods—was demonstrated clearly, during the Falkland Islands campaign. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will tell us what is being done about providing the naval form of AEW with a capability, such as was provided by Gannets, which could now operate from smaller carriers. When the Navy is deployed out of range of land airfields, is it possible to put some form of AEW in helicopters? This would not produce the type of AEW that we have in Nimrods. However, such a system might have been good enough during the Falkland Islands operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer this question.
The House has to accept that we must spend more on defence. I accept that our defence capability must be linked to our economy, but I believe that the Treasury should be persuaded to give a higher priority to defence. I repeat that the real danger will come in the next five years.
The Soviet leadership will change in the near future. The Soviet economy is declining. The Soviets cannot feed themselves. The cohesion of the Soviet State is at risk. When the new leadership conies to power, it may have to choose between aggression and disintegration. Only by strong forces in this country and in NATO as a whole can the Soviets be persuaded that aggression will not pay.
I hope that the Treasury Minister will bear that in mind. Most of my colleagues in the North Atlantic Assembly agree with this. I repeat that lie danger will come in the next five or six years. I believe that the Prime Minister, whose single-minded leadership, supported by some of the finest troops in the world won the Falkland Islands campaign, will still give top priority to defence.
I now refer to procurement or what has been called RSI in the language of defence. RSI has been discussed this year, and for mar y years, with the armed services Committees of both the Senate and Congress. I am convinced that the Americans want to share with this; country and with Europe a better division of defence procurement. Of course, there is a powerful industrial lobby in the United States, which acts against joint procurement. However, I believe that the decisions on the AV8B and the VTXTS, the naval trainer based on the Hawk, are very important and good guides for the future.
I see from the photographs that the "Illustrious" has been fitted with Vulcan Phalanx. That is a good weapon, but it is nowhere as good as Sea Wolf. Sea Wolf proved itself in the Falklands. I understand that it brought down an Exocet. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, if possible.
The trouble with Sea Wolf is that it is too heavy. Therefore, it can be carried only in type 22 frigates, which are large ships. However, a lightweight Sea Wolf will be available in the near future in vertical, double or quadruple launchers. I believe that it is a world beater. I hope that the Government will do everything possible, now that the


radar problem has been solved, to get this system at sea as soon as possible. It is clear that our ships are under-defended against air attack.
I recall that in the early part of the Second World War, HMS "Nelson" had six 4·7 in. anti-aircraft guns. At the end of the war, those ships were covered with every form of gun—Chicago cannons, oerlikons, and so on. The same will happen now. We have just fought the first war of the missile age. The lesson that must be learnt is that ships must have long-range as well as short-range protection against missiles, particularly sea skimmers.
Sea Wolf can offer such short-range protection. It can offer it in containerised forms. It can go in merchant ships. It could go in the RFAs, which should also be fitted with chaff dischargers, which would have saved the "Atlantic Conveyor", had she had them.
The Arapaho project has been mentioned. It is a way of expanding the Royal Navy cheaply. Container ships can be used as anti-submarine carriers, operating helicopters and Sea Harriers.
There are only 16 deep-water trawlers and 58 middle-water trawlers left, all of which could be immensely important as auxiliary minesweepers. The House must remember that the Soviets are the world's leaders in minelaying and that our ports could be closed.
Sea Dart did a fine job. It made Argentine aircraft fly low because they knew its envelope. As a result, they were put in the range of Sea Wolf. It brought down a number of Argentine aircraft. There should be better radar, which would allow it to deal not only with long-range but with low-flying targets.
We should not forget the value of the gun. The gun was used more than any other weapon in the Falkland Islands. I hope that the type 23 frigates will have some form of gun that is bigger than a 20 mm.
I am sorry that during the Falklands operation we did not manage to discover the two elusive German-built Argentine submarines, because I should have liked to have seen Sting Ray demonstrated operationally. I believe that the submarines would have been sunk with Sting Ray, which is undoubtedly the foremost torpedo in the world.
As I have said on previous occasions, I believe that, jointly with the United States, we should develop heavyweight and lightweight torpedoes based on Sting Ray's guidance system and American propulsion. That has been discussed with Members of Congress. They realise that it would save much money for the American taxpayers. Every effort should be made in that respect so that the Americans can drop their ALWT programme and join us in a programme to provide heavyweight and lightweight torpedoes for the whole of NATO.
I conclude by paying my tribute to the forces in the Falklands campaign. I pay tribute to the Army and to the RAF, but in this debate particularly to the men of the Merchant Navy from the "Queen Elizabeth" to the Hull trawlers and tugs that joined in the operation. I pay tribute to the RFAs and the ships' companies of the Royal Navy which took such a battering in that campaign. Above all, the House would expect me to pay tribute, as have others, to those who went in first and came out last—the Royal Marine Commandos and the Special Boat Section. Our finest troops—probably the finest in the world—took part in the Falkland Islands operations—Paratroops, Guards,

Gurkhas and the Royal Marines. In that company the Royal Marines acquitted themselves with their usual distinction.

Mr. George Robertson: It is customary and traditional in Service debates to pay tribute to the dedication in the previous year of all our Armed Forces. In the normal course of events we do so, but the past few weeks and the conflict in the South Atlantic have increased our debt to the Armed Forces, especially the Royal Navy. The tributes that have come from both sides of the House are all the more fulsome as a result of the evident bravery, courage and sheer professionalism displayed by our Armed Forces in the successful discharge of their task.
It is right for us to use these occasions to make such comments and to draw lessons from events. I do not share the scepticism of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) about the inquiry into the events that led to the task force setting sail. Lives were lost in the South Atlantic, and there was a military and financial cost. Although some would say that we have gained valuable experience, I do not believe that we need go that far and pay that price to obtain the military experience that our forces might need.
It was slightly less than tasteful for the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) to say that he would have liked our forces to have found the two Argentine submarines so that they could obtain operational experience with the Sting Ray lightweight torpedo. I am profoundly grateful that the two Argentine submarines were not found. I am even more grateful, of course, that the two submarines were not used by the Argentines. I have heard the hon. Member for Haltemprice speak on many occasions, and I am sure that he did not mean exactly what he said.
When we consider the lessons learnt from the campaign we shall accept, with sorrow, that it had to be mounted in the first place. If the committee of inquiry with its eminent, if elderly, gentlemen reaches the root of why our forces had to go to the Falklands and why 255 of our young men in those forces had to die, its service to the country will be discharged.
It is important to make a number of other points in this debate on the Royal Navy. When we debated the Navy estimates the praise given by the Secretary of State to the Royal Navy and its role in the Falklands was less than enthusiastic. I intended to say that the praise was grudging, but perhaps I should not go that far. I have read his speech twice and the compliments he paid to the Royal Navy were less than it deserved. Had it not been for the Royal Navy, none of the experiences in the Falklands would have been possible.
We may argue that if General Galtieri had moved 12 months later there would have been no task force to send. However, what is self-evident from the operation is that without the capital ships, especially the two aircraft carriers, and without the Royal Navy in the strength and force that it was able to put together in a short space of time, nothing would have happened. General Galtieri would have marched in and next April would be celebrating the first anniversary of the taking of the Malvinas. The Royal Navy's position was absolutely pivotal, and I hope that Ministers will give due credit to that fact.
Support has been grudging, and I say that not without some evidence. The most glaring evidence of that grudging compliment to the Royal Navy has, as other hon. Members have said, arisen in relation to the replacement of the four ships that were sunk. Without a doubt, there is genuine concern in all parts of the House about replacements for those ships. HMS "Sheffield", HMS "Coventry" and the two type 21 frigates were sunk in the South Atlantic, yet the Secretary of State simply announced a fortnight ago:
Over the next few months we shall be considering ship replacement orders following the Falklands operation, but in the meantime I have decided to order, within the already planned programme".
As the Minister has already confirmed this afternoon, the apparent replacements are already provided for within the programme. Therefore, the continuation of the life of the "Fife", "Glamorgan", "Bristol" and the ordering of the type 22 frigates is simply a short-term expedient presumably to lead us to the point where the Government are ready to make the ordering possible.
It seems strange that in the defence debate the Government were able to announce that all the helicopters lost in the Falklands would be replaced and that extra would be ordered. They were able to announce that all the Harriers that were lost would be replaced and that additional Harriers would be ordered. However, they are unable to give the orders to the shipyards to bring the Navy's already depleted forces up to a level that would again make it credible.
I do not need to underline to the House the desperate plight of many of our shipyards. A decision on the replacement of four ships is urgently needed, not just to bring the Royal Navy up to strength but to ensure that our capability of rebuilding a future fleet is real and credible.
Another aspect of this matter is the Government's propaganda machine in relation to the Royal Navy. I have been intrigued and interested—at times even annoyed—to see the same phrases pop up in speeches around the country, in newspaper articles and now in speeches from the Government Front Bench. The same comments appear almost word for word.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and I did a large number of broadcasts together on Radio Scotland during the Falklands conflict. We almost became the Morecambe and Wise of the airwaves. It was incredible that on most occasions the hon. Gentleman seemed to be reading the same script. The same script has been used by the Secretary of State. In the defence debate a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman said:
the facts are that we are spending nearly £500 million more in real terms on the conventional naval programme than the previous Government in the year before we took office. We shall still be spending more on the conventional Navy, at the peak of Trident expenditure, than when the Labour Party was in power.
In that same debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said:
He should note that in this financial year we are spending £½ billion more, in real terms, on the conventional Navy. I cannot repeat that too often".—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1063–1124.]
Indeed, he cannot, because the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) came across the Honiton Division Conservative Association, Newspoint, which stated:

Talk of running down the Navy is nonsense … There will be more major ships and submarines operational in 1985 Man there are today. A massive modernisation programme of the fleet is in hand.
All that may be a coincidence. Individual Conservative Members may have received revelations in a blinding flash leading to the synchronised statements telling those facts to the public. Otherwise, a briefing has been issued by the Government on which Conservative Members are relying, and they do so to their cost. In one of the photocopy rooms in the House one of my colleagues came across a document, the words of which bear a remarkable resemblance to those used by Conservative Members. The document is headed "The Royal Navy—Naval Budget". It says:
Talk of savage cuts in the Navy is nonsense. This financial year we will be spending £½ billion more in real terms on the Navy than was spent in the year before we came to office.
It continues in words identical to those used by Conservative Members all over the country and now in the House.
I shall examine in detail some of the assertions in the briefing. The first is that £½ billion more in real terms will be spent on the Navy this year. Of course it is true, but that expenditure is a consequence of ordering by the Labour Government. The Conservative Government are parading a boast—Conservative Back-Benchers are joining them—about expenditure committed by the previous Government instead of by this Government.
The secret briefing says:
There will be more major ships and submarines operational in 1985 than there are today. A massive modernisation programme for the fleet is in hand involving the construction of over 30 new ships which includes over 50 per cent. of the destroyer force.
A fortnight ago I asked how many of these ships had been ordered and how many ships were due to be delivered to the Royal Navy by 1987. The Minister said that 11 ships were accepted into Royal Navy service between May 1979 and June 1982—the first period since the Government came to power—all of which were ordered by May 1979. By 1987—a long time away—there will be a further 14 ships entering the service of the Royal Navy. Of those 14 ships, 10 were ordered before May 1979. Thus the strength of the Royal Navy's new additions is dependent on decisions taken by the Labour Government. Only four out of the 25 ships that will come into service during the Conservative Government were ordered by them.
One of the most contentious issues to have been raised is the date—1985—that Conservative Members have been parroting as well as the £½ billion more claimed to be spent in real terms by this Government. The Government say that more major ships and submarines will be operational in 1985 than today. However, on the same day as the previous question that I put also asked for a simple comparison between the number of ships in the Royal Navy, excluding submarines, and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries in service now with the exact number in service in May 1979. The answer that I received from the Minister was that in 1979 the Government inherited 154 major warships and that the number now in service is 139. Of the ships ordered under the Labour Government that are coming on stream, only four were ordered by the Conservative Government. They say that we shall have more ships by 1985. That is because of the prudent ordering policy of the previous Government. So the Conservative Party or Ministry of Defence briefing that has been used throughout


the country to defend the Government's record on the Navy is a boast based on the orders of the Labour Government.
Why have the Government taken 1985 as the magical date for more ships? The answer is self-evident. There will be fewer ships after 1985. We would not have had the three ships that have now been reprieved—HMS "Fife", HMS "Glamorgan" and HMS "Bristol"—because, as the Secretary of State said in a previous debate, they were to be paid off in the mid-1980s. After 1985 we shall begin to see the depletion of the Royal Navy when the Conservative Government have taken credit up to that time for the ships ordered by the Labour Government.
I have genuine feelings of pride about the Navy and about the courage and professionalism shown by all the Armed Forces, but I wish to inject an element of caution because it is not all sweetness and light or good news. Naval personnel will be made redundant. Dockyards will be shut and civilian dockyards, whose capacity is militarily as necessary as many naval dockyards, will die unless they get orders soon. Although we should recognise our achievement, we must also be aware of the dangers in which we put ourselves if we choose to believe propaganda rather than facts.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Debates on the Navy are annual events, but this debate is held against a different background. It has been our custom for years to discuss a peace-time Navy, but this year the Navy was tested in the crisis and horrors of war only a few weeks ago. It is a great achievement that the Navy came through that crisis with its flags flying and with a magnificent victory. The names Falkland Sound and San Carlos will go down in our naval history on the roll of honour in the same way as have many other parts of the world.
Many lessons will be learnt from the campaign, but it is too soon to go into the details of any necessary changes in the design of ships or weapons systems. However, what can be said is that the operation was brilliant in its conception and execution. I was fortunate enough to attend SACLANT's "Sealink" conference a few weeks' ago. It opened on the day on which our victory was announced. SACLANT said that the United Kingdom did everything right in the campaign, and that is praise from a well-qualified source. Almost every hon. Member has paid tribute tonight to the skill, ability and competence of those who took part in the campaign.
It is ironic that it was the Labour Government, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Secretary of State for Defence, who decided that never again would Britain take part in an operation; never again would we take part in an operation without air support from land bases; never again would we take part in an operation alone; never again would we rely on mobile repair facilities; and never again would there be an opposed landing. It is thus hard now to hear the Labour Party posturing as the party of the Navy. No one did more damage to the Navy than the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
The policy of the main Opposition party is to cut defence spending by 11 times as much as will be spent on Trident. We hear much waffle and nonsense from the Opposition about the way in which they would build up

the Navy, but the question that they do not answer is where they would find the money. Are they in favour of the argument of their former Prime Minister that we should pull our soldiers out of Germany? I doubt it, because the consequences would be very serious.
Lessons will be learnt about the construction of ships in the light of which we shall no doubt examine the type and number of ships to be constructed. There is no doubt that the capability of ships to survive damage must be examined carefully.
When I was in the United States I had the opportunity to examine some of its latest ships. The Americans face exactly the same problems as do we. They have also built superstuctures in aluminium. Because they are also trying to obtain more comfort for their crews they have filled cabin and deck spaces with combustible materials. They also have the problem of plastic insulated wiring that burns easily.
I was reminded by a constituent of a fire on a type 42 destroyer when it was being built at Swan Hunter on the Tyne a few years ago. One wonders what action was taken as a result of that fire. The problem is certainly not confined only to our ships. It certainly also confronts the American navy.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman mentions his visit to America. Will he confirm or deny that he also went to Buenos Aes on a trading mission, part of which concerned me selling of arms?

Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman is not absolutely right. I was not selling arms. I visited Argentina and the Falkland Islands at the same time. I also saw the Argentine navy. It is a pity that it showed no belligerency at that time. I put recent events down to a change of personalities. President Galtieri was not in charge when I went there. If there had been any suggestion of belligerency, I should have made it clear that Britain would fight to protect her rights. Unfortunately, the issue did not arise. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not point out his views on arms sales to his Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman signed a contract with Argentina for two type 42 destroyers just before the 1970 election.
Hardly any attention has been paid in the debate to the fact that progress is being made on no fewer than three new types of vessel. At last the new conventional submarines of type 2400 are to be put out to tender as are the new mine counter-measure vessels for the Royal Naval Reserve, while the type 23 frigates are to proceed. We warmly welcome those developments. I hope that some work will come to shipyards on the Tyne. I have some sympathy for the suggestion that the Australians might be persuaded to buy a new "Invincible" type carrier that is built at Swan Hunter's rather than HMS "Hermes", wonderful ship though she is. I should like to think that they will get longer life from a new ship built on the Tyne than from the "Hermes", however well she has been maintained.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will say a little about the need to replace some of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels which performed so well in the South Atlantic. Tyneside has built almost every Royal Fleet Auxiliary since the last war. It is important to replace some of those valuable ships in the next few years and that work should go to the Tyne.
I hope that some of the necessary repair work on the returning ships will go to merchant yards around Britain.


I shall not be too parochial and suggest that they should all come to the Tyne. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that there is a serious problem on the Tyne at the present as a result of the lack of civilian repair work.
The Navy faces the problem of a rapid increase in the real cost of constructing new ships. One can argue all night about the figures, but more is now being spent than ever before on new ships for the Navy. An average of 44 per cent. a year more has been spent in real terms in the last three years than in the five years of the last Labour Government. It is sterile to argue who should take the praise. It is a fact of life that building a sophisticated warship takes many years. It is obvious that in any five-year period practically all the new ships that are put into commission will have been ordered by the previous Government.
I am delighted that we are to keep all three of the Invincible class of carriers. That is the right decision. Success in the Falklands would have been impossible without aircraft, especially the Harriers. The Falklands conflict has been a wonderful success for those controversial aircraft. It had been argued by some that the Harrier would not be a success in action. It has now proved itself in most difficult circumstances. I agree that it is a tragedy that any equipment has to prove itself in combat.
We need the largest possible quantity of ships, but we must also have quality. As I have said before, survivability is extremely important. Although our nuclear submarines kept the Argentine navy bottled up in port, without our surface ships the entire operation would have been impossible. That applies to nearly every conceivable maritime operation. The Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic has said that he has only 50 per cent. of the ships that he needs to perform all his tasks, and our General Council of British Shipping believes that there are too few escorts available in the Atlantic. All that is a powerful argument for maintaining, if not increasing, the number of ships.
On the other hand, the cost of sophisticated equipment, especially to deal with the threat from missiles, is extremely high. We should not forget that the threat at sea today comes basically from missiles. The Argentine air force flew with great bravery and did much damage with old-fashioned bombs. In future, however—and this applies to many of the world's forces, not just to the Warsaw Pact—the main threat will be from missiles whether launched from aircraft, from surface ships or from under the sea by submarines.
We must be careful that our expertise in anti-submarine warfare, which is much valued by our NATO allies, does not lead to a position in which our ships cannot defend themselves against missile attack and would thus be in danger of being sunk before they could attack the submarines. The main threat on the horizon is that the whole of the Soviet navy is built around the anti-surface ship missile—long-range, fast, numerous and in the near future sea-skimming. They are fired from supersonic Backfire bombers, enormous Oscar submarines and the new giant nuclear-powered battle cruisers of the Kirov class. They practise saturation attack, against which a sophisticated and expensive air defence system is needed, which brings us back to the problem of how many ships we can afford.
The Americans are bringing new Aegis class cruisers into service for that air defence role, at a cost of £500 million each. It is hoped to miniaturise this system in a few

years into a new destroyer costing between £200 million and £300 million. In due course, the United Kingdom will also have to consider a type 24, as it were, of similar sophistication.
If one visits the United States navy today, one is impressed by the number of anti-ship missiles carried on board its surface ships. The Americans are bolting Harpoons on to almost all of their ships. In explosive power, those weapons are almost twice as deadly as Exocet. In about a year, the much longer range Tomahawk will come into service. It will be widely used in the United States navy and its warhead is four times as deadly as Exocet. Those missiles will not be used against us, but the lesson is there. There is no doubt that our potential enemies will develop or acquire something similar.
Of course, it does not matter what equipment the Navy or any of the Services has if the calibre of manpower is not right. The record here in personal terms can only be described as superlative. Those of us who have been in the South Atlantic know about the weather there. I went there in what was described as the summer. There was no snow, but there were gales, rain and fierce wind. They are terrible conditions in which to operate and all credit is due to our men who were so successful in their task both at sea and ashore.
The volume of the air attacks on our ships was enormous. It must have been a terrifying experience, particularly for those members of the Merchant Navy who so readily went to the South Atlantic. There were 52 ships, from the QE2 right down to tugs, with a total of 3,251 crew, including 56 brave ladies. The "Canberra" found herself used as an assault ship. I would not be surprised if its crew were less cheerful the second time that they went into San Carlos Sound with the bombs falling all around them—nor am I surprised that the captain felt that the ship was a large target especially as the weather that morning was apparently lovely. The ferry "Elk", which usually runs from my native North-East, went into San Carlos Sound with 2,000 tonnes of ammunition on deck. As the captain commented, if anything had hit her the crew would never have known what it was.
One cannot pay too high a tribute to the members of the Merchant Navy who went so readily into action. I echo calls for the strength of the Merchant Navy to be maintained. Its decline is most worrying. I spoke to the United States maritime administrator, Admiral Shear, recently. The same lesson has been learnt there. The ships that we operate in peace time are essential in war time. Without them operations such as that to the Falklands cannot be mounted.
There has been comment about the fleet auxiliaries. An example is the "Olmeda", a tanker which spent 96 days at sea without anchoring and refuelled ships 186 times in the storms off the Falklands. It was a great achievement. One must also mention the landing ships including the "Sir Gallahad", which was tragically lost. To see some of her Chinese crew, who bravely sailed into those waters, attending a service on board one of the ships when the Welsh Guards were singing a hymn in Welsh brought home to me the debt that we owe to our Chinese friends from Hong Kong who manned these ships. I do not think that they understood the Welsh hymn any more than I did. It was nevertheless a moving occasion.
It is worth recording the words of two of the officers in command. Commander Nick Tobin, of the "Antelope", which, sadly, was sunk in action, reported


Not one man turned away or failed to do his duty.
Everyone on board acted in the most marvellous manner. Commander Alan West, of the "Ardent", sunk after 17 attacks, reported,
Conditions in the fires were terrifying but the men were marvellous. They all did superbly and were a bloody good team.
That could be said, I think, of everyone who went to the Falklands. They were indeed superb and a "bloody good team" of which we can be very proud.
I believe that the House owes a duty to the country and to our Services to ensure that we maintain our capability to react successfully in a similar manner in the future. It is impossible, I believe, for this to be achieved on the limited amount of money currently being made available. I do not blame the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend was given an impossible task. I do not believe that we should come out of Germany. I do not believe that anyone else will defend the skies above Britain. It is only through the possession of our own nuclear weapons that we can prevent the prospect of a Hiroshima in this country.
It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend that he has had to take unpalatable decisions. I believe, however, that the people of this country in their present mood are prepared to see more money spent on defending themselves. Hon. Members talk glibly about increasing defence spending by 3 per cent. although that in itself is an achievement, for many countries in NATO fail to meet that target. We are talking, however, of 3 per cent. of about 5 per cent. of GNP that is spent on defence. Seen against the national income this increase represents an infinitesimal sum. We are adding only 1/600th of the total of our annual national resources. I do not believe that this amount is adequate in an imperfect world when we face a serious threat, not least at sea from the Warsaw Pact. It is wrong that we should be spending no more in real terms on defence than we were in the 1960s when the country was much less wealthy. This is a priority that must be reassessed.
Our maritime capability and power has been proved in the Falklands. It has shown that our resources normally available to NATO can be moved, through the flexibility of sea power, to action literally at the other end of the world. That is a contribution that we can and must uniquely continue to make to NATO. There will be future challenges in far-off places, the location of which we cannot at this time determine. The success of our action in the Falklands has been perceived all over the world and not only in Third world countries where potential aggressors will be encouraged to lay off. I believe that our success and the failure of aggression have also been perceived in Moscow. It will make the likelihood of all-out war between East and West less likely but there will be challenges in far-off places when we least expect them. We must be prepared to face those challenges in the same way as we did in the Falklands, even if that means spending more money.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am jarringly and screechingly out of tune with the consensus of the debate, and not only with the Government, but with some of the things that have been said from the Opposition Front Bench. I wonder what would have happened if my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had

made today's speech and gone to himself in a previous incarnation as a successful Treasury Minister in a previous Labour Government, or if he were to make it and go to himself as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a future Labour Government.
We should spend less on the Navy; we should concentrate on our obligations to NATO in the North Atlantic; we should eschew a world-wide role and spend anything that we save on investment in the railways, the National Health Service and many other things. If we take the attitude that what we have we hold, candidly, defence cannot be pruned; but if we say, as I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends do, that we must prune defence, then we cannot in honesty say that what we have we hold.
From 3 April I was consistently against the sending of the task force. I am for NATO in the North Atlantic, and I am astonished that we appear to be shaping the Fleet and gearing its use to the Falklands. That is what the retention of HMS "Invincible" is all about. Never has a tail wagged a dog in such a way as the defence policy of this nation is being wagged by the Falkland Islands problem. It would appear from the debate that the view of many hon. Members is that we should have a semi-permanent, if not permanent, commitment in the South Atlantic. I dissent from that view.
With regard to the Navy there is another issue. After the awful night that we heard that HMS "Sheffield" had been struck and the Secretary of State for Defence announced the tragedy on that unforgettable occasion, should we not have learnt that possibly 5,000 years of naval history had changed more than a little? If an Argentine Exocet could do that to HMS "Sheffield", what about the more sophisticated equipment in the hands of the Russians? The question has to be asked: what future do surface ships have in naval warfare? Is it wise to have a great spending programme on surface ships?
I heard the Minister talk about British power in purely national terms. He then talked about equipment cost growth, and fairly said that a type 22 now costs £130 million, or three times the real cost of the "Leander" that it succeeded. He talked about the accelerated costs of recent years. That is absolutely true. He said that costs showed every sign of continuing to accelerate. That referred to the rise in real costs. I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the bills that are being run up for a Treasury of either a Labour or Conservative Government are enormous. I wonder whether, in paying those bills for capital ships, we are not preparing for the
By the middle of May a few of us were asking a cacophony of pertinent questions. Was Britain prepared to restructure the Fleet in such a way as to keep a portion of it 8,000 miles away for the foreseeable future? Why was the Royal Navy task force sent south without adequate air cover? I ask those questions not with hindsight. I interrupted the Prime Minister with such questions at the time. Was it thought that the original Harriers packed into "Invincible" and "Hermes" were sufficient to maintain standing patrols and to prevent Exocet-carrying Etendards approaching close enough for a lethal strike against "Sheffield"? I recognise the bravery and skill of our Navy, but those questions must be asked.
Why was there not adequate airborne radar surveillance? Why was Sea Wolf, which is the most effective available missile to counter Exocet, not in place on the destroyers? Why was the destroyer that had to be placed on radar control under-equipped to protect itself from a


missile strike? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said, similar Soviet destroyers positively bristle with defensive weaponry. By comparison, "Sheffield" was naked. I do not ask these questions pejoratively. Hindsight is marvellous. There may be adequate answers.
I interrupted the Minister to ask what it was about the materials used in British warships that it needed only one missile hit to turn the ship into a blazing inferno which had to be abandoned. Are other ships as fire vulnerable as "Sheffield"? If so, what would have happened had a super Etendard got the promised wing tanks from the United States, extended its range and penetrated with air-launched Exocets the defensive screen to find a way into a carrier's hangar deck full of Harriers and fuel? It was a close run thing. Thanks to the American Customs, vital parts were embargoed at the last moment at an American airport. We must be grateful to the Americans for that.
Why did a significant number of deaths occur through fumes from melting insulating material covering the miles of cabling in a modern warship? The danger of poison and fumes was foreseen. Why did the Navy not act? We should know the Navy's justification, if it does not accept the criticism. I am not the only hon. Member to raise the question.
There are hardly less acute questions for the naval air strategists. Was it safe to rely on dog-fighting aircraft like Harrier when the stand-off success of the super Etendard suggests that there was little occasion for classic air dog fights? Has not stand-off weaponry, coupled with improved communications and intensely accurate targeting, transformed modern warfare? That relates to my question about the future building programme for surface ships. Was not the sinking of "Sheffield" the turning point? Never again can a capital ship be deemed relatively safe and protected from air-launched surface-skimming missiles.
The Minister of State said that there will be a thorough evaluation of the campaign and that it cannot be done until everyone has returned. It should be the subject of a day's debate in the House and a full report.
This is probably not the time to raise the question of weaponry and exports in detail, but some people are worried about exports and end-user certificates. People are worried that the Nelson eye is being turned to the end-user certificates. Shakespeare said "Now thrive the armourers". All round the world the tag "Falklands tested" means a lot, not only for British weaponry, but for French and other weaponry. The bravery of our Service men is not in doubt, but on 2 April how many hon. Members in the House who favoured the dispatch of the task force thought that we should lose four navy ships and much else?
I have some specific questions to ask. This is the time to pose a question formulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and a number of others. Why was it necessary to give the orders to fire the torpedoes that sank "Belgrano"? There might have been an operational reason. Perhaps her escorting destroyers were carrying surface-to-surface Exocets. We have never been given a full explanation. The commander of "Conqueror" returning to Scotland said that he was given superior orders from Northwood. I can assume only that the orders came directly from the Prime Minister.
The President of Peru and many others claimed that the sinking of "Belgrano" was also a deliberate sinking by the

British of the Peruvian peace negotiations, which might have been successful. There is a case to answer. I hope that the inquiry will put its mind to that.
Some light must be thrown, one way or another, on a Sub-Committee meeting of the War Cabinet of 19 March. Adam Raphael of The Observer said that submarines were asked for. I do not say that he is right, that the Foreign Office is right or that the Ministry of Defence is wrong, but I can see no reason why we should not be given a factual statement instead of having to rely on innuendo.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli rightly asked about the statement by the captain of "Endurance". I hope that he will receive an answer to his pertinent questions. I ask another pertinent question. It is said in the press that divers are going to the bowels of "Sheffield" to recover sensitive equipment. There should be a denial, if one can be given, that the sensitive equipment involves nuclear depth charges. If nuclear weapons were brought into the Western hemisphere there may be a serious breach of the agreement by Western hemisphere States that the nuclear weapons of any other country shall not be brought in. That is important, and the matter should be cleared up. I prefer to believe that none of our ships was carrying nuclear weapons. If that is so, the Government should say so and put and end to the speculation.
Much of the truth should come out when the Committee under Lord Franks reports. I have asked the Prime Minister questions about that Committee. The House was not told the Thursday before last, when we agreed to the Franks Committee, that Lord Franks had the appalling burden of having to go into hospital for a cataract operation. Is it fair, reasonable or sensible to ask a man in his seventy-eighth year, however distinguished, with the problem of cataract which needs rest, to go through the complex papers involved? Distinguished blind lawyers and others operate well, but not to be able to read and to have to start having papers read to one in one's seventy-eighth year is not reasonable in terms of the chairmanship of an investigative committee of this importance. I hope that this week the Government will come forward with a statement either to say that Lord Franks is fit for the job or to suggest who his successor might be.
It is well known to my colleagues that, unlike most of them, I think, alas—I take no joy in it—that we are at the end not of the Falklands crisis but of phase one. In no way will any foreseeable Government of Argentina ever surrender their claim and, heaven help us, the threat of hostilities, if not actual hostilities, is likely to go on for the lifetime of the youngest among us.
This raises the issue of how we supply the Falkland Islands when no other Latin American country is likely to act as a substitute. This means convoys, and we ought to be given a clear estimate of the costs of it all. I find that they are mind-boggling. I can only speak for myself and for some of my colleagues on the Opposition Back Benches. I do not presume to speak for other people. But for a nation that cannot find the investment for its railways, that cannot pay its hospital service workers properly and that cannot do many other things, it is a gross misjudgment of priorities to go forward with the kind of naval expenditure for which most hon. Members have asked.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not be surprised when I say that I agree with very little of


what he said. I do not doubt his sincerity. That is acknowledged by all Scots. But he will acknowledge in turn that many Scots still feel that Scotland should be an independent nation, although we have learnt to live with the fact that we are not. There is nothing odd about the Argentines claiming that the Falkland Islands are theirs. We have learnt to live with that for a long time. But that does not mean that we shall face hostilities again in the South Atlantic. One of the lessons of history is that rarely is a course repeated.
This is the first debate of this kind in which I have been fortunate enough to be called. That being so, I take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the task force and all those in the United Kingdom, both civilian and Service, who contributed to the victory in the Falklands and other parts of the South Atlantic.
I want especially to pay tribute to 45 Royal Marine Commando from Condor in Arbroath in Scotland. I do so because at weekends, wearing my RAFVR uniform, I fly from that base, and therefore I have a particular affection for the members of 45 Royal Marine Commando and I sorrow for the 15 who failed to return.
I do not doubt, and have never doubted, that there were bound to be some foul-ups both in the mounting of the task force and in the execution of the battles. I also believe that some individuals would be tempted to exploit these if there were any. However, we should all remember who won in the South Atlantic. Democracy won. The rule of law won. Freedom won. We should never cease to repeat that, because that is what the 255 who gave their lives made their sacrifice for. They did not give their lives for any of the jingoism that we have heard so often. They gave their lives so that our children and future children in the Falkland Islands could enjoy what we hold so dear.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing his White Paper. In common with many hon. Members, I do not find that I agree with everything in any White Paper. I should be surprised if I did. But I believe that this White Paper is based on a realistic assessment of the nation's defence priorities and seeks to create viable defence capabilities within the limits of the funds available. That is the nub of the matter—within the limits of the funds available. I believe sincerely that there are insufficient funds available. I support the view that it should have been not a 3 per cent. but a 4 per cent. increase. That would have removed many of the problems that we have discussed.
I do not want to stray too far into the possible lessons of the Falklands conflict. That subject will be covered fully by the comprehensive and detailed study being carried out at the Ministry of Defence. However, I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on a few of the obvious lessons that are to be learnt and the possible deficiencies which became apparent in the task force.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) referred in the earlier debate to the 1957 White Paper of the Labour Government. I remember that White Paper vividly, because in it the RAF was expected to fly rockets in the future. As I happened to be serving in the RAF at about that time, I had a particular interest in the matter, and I did not particularly fancy flying rockets. The hon. Lady should get her facts right. I agree that the problem was put right, but it was put right by successive Conservative Governments, not by Labour Governments.

In 1964, when the Conservative left office, the new Labour Government cancelled the TSR2 and left the Air Force with an enormous problem. In fact, they did greater damage to the Air Force than the 1957 White Paper ever did.
Now the Labour Party recommends that Britain's defence budget should be reduced to equal that of our European Allies. That could be achieved only by the reintroduction of national service, and the Labour Party should say so. That is what is done by the rest of our NATO Allies. That is how they achieve the figures. The countries that were selected by the Labour Party achieve their budgets by having national service.
There is another lesson to be learnt from the Falkland Islands campaign. Without airborne early-warning radar, hostile aircraft using modern weapons can inflict considerable damage on ships of the fleet. Even old-fashioned iron bombs can still do considerable damage. The question that we must ask is: why did the carriers lack that capability? Again, we should look at the Labour Party's White Papers. The White Paper issued by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) removed that capability from the Navy. He decided that Gannets would no longer be required. He decided that the Royal Navy would no longer be required to operate out of the area covered by land-based Royal Air Force aircraft. It was decided that there would be no flotilla and no squadron east of Suez and in the South Atlantic. That decision was taken at a time when the Navy no longer had the capacity for early warning radar. The blame again lies with the Labour Party.
There is another lesson to be learnt from what happened in the South Atlantic. Our existing surface warships may not be adequately equipped to cope with surface-skimming missiles. People may say that it is all very well to say that with hindsight, knowing the success of Exocet. I recommend those people to read my amendment No. 2 to the early-day motion 283 of 2 March 1982 of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir. F. Burden) on HMS "Invincible". In that amendment I drew attention to the deficiencies of surface ships and, in particular, to the shortage of weapons systems to deal with sea-skimming missiles. I tabled that amendment a long time ago. I still believe that carriers in the North Atlantic are an embarrassment to us until we can defend them, and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise. Anyone who thinks that because one can send carriers to the South Atlantic and fly Harriers from them against the enemy there and in the conditions that existed there, and imagines that those conditions would recur in the North Atlantic, ignores the fact that Soviet land-based aircraft and submarines have the capability of launching sea-skimming missiles which could inflict considerable damage on our ships.
What is the answer? What matters is not the number of hulls, but the equipment on board. That is why my right hon. Friend's priorities are right in going for weapons systems, not hulls. Once weapons are in service, they can be mounted on civilian ships. Indeed, Harriers can also be mounted on civilian ships.

Mr. Speed: rose—

Mr. Walker: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend, because I wish to speak briefly on probably the most important matter—Trident. Trident is a highly emotional subject in Scotland. The base will be in Scotland. It is an


area about which the Scots are worried, partly because of the misleading information that we hear largely from the Opposition Benches. Indeed, in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), in which I intervened, he claimed that Trident was a first strike weapon, designed to knock out the Soviet's capability.
I intervened to ask the hon. Gentleman how Trident would knock out SS20s. He showed his ignorance by suggesting that I did not know what I was talking about. The truth is that he does not know what he is talking about, because he has not realised that the SS20 is a mobile missile and that to try to use Trident at sea to knock out mobile missiles without the exact location being known makes no sense.
We in Scotland recognise the need for our nuclear deterrent.

Mr. George Foulkes: Rubbish.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman did not win any of the debates on the 14 Sunday mornings. He should not make such comments from a sedentary position.
We require Trident. I welcome Trident, and I welcome the White Paper.

Mr. Denzil Davies: By leave of the House. I shall be brief partly because the Under-Secretary of State has many questions to answer, many of them from the Conservative Benches.
This is the third debate on defence in two weeks in which I have spoken. I am sure that Lady Bracknell would have had something to say about it, but I cannot remember the quotation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been slightly unfair to the case presented by the Opposition in the past two debates. We have certainly never suggested that we should seek another world-wide role. Indeed, my point was that the best contribution Britain can make within NATO—I take his point about NATO—is a maritime one. Our criticism of the Government is that they have moved away too far from that idea and, by cutting the Navy as they have, they have reduced that type of flexibility and have reduced NATO's maritime defence capabilities. On expenditure, we pointed out in the previous defence debate that, as a result of the Falklands, the cost of Trident II and the various other decisions, defence will be taking next year, if not this, 5½ per cent. of Britain's gross national product—if not a declining, then certainly a static gross national product. I entirely appreciate what my hon. Friend said. We quite rightly took a chance in sending the task force to the South Atlantic because that task force was not geared, despite the heroism, the efficiency and the success, to that type of operation. The carriers were not real carriers. They were anti-submarine ships and were not designed primarily for that role. That is why it was a difficult operation which succeeded but could have gone tragically wrong.
Trident has been referred to in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said—the point was made in the previous debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—that Britain cannot fight a war, certainly not a nuclear war, without American approval. Whether we argue that Trident is independent or not in a theatre sense, and whatever the treaties may or may not say, in practice

it would not be possible for Britain to fight a nuclear war against the Soviet Union—that is what we are discussing—without American approval, if the Americans decided not to commit their own nuclear weapons. I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Buck: Trident could have been highly relevant to the Falklands issue. If the Argentines had gone for nuclear weapons, it would have been important for Britain to have independent control of a nuclear capacity. That is covered by the Treaty of Nassau and the new arrangements for Trident, and is important in this debate.

Mr. Davies: I do not want to pursue that issue now. We do not have enough time to do so. We can return to it on another occasion.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) saying "It is all the Treasury's fault. It does not matter what percentage of GNP we spend on defence. We must have the right amount of defence." That is the impression that he tried to give. He knows that there has to be a central Department in every Government to control expenditure. He knows that there has to be a balance of priorities between defence, social services and other public expenditure. It is silly to say that defence is more important than everything else and that we should not worry too much about the percentage of GNP that we spend on it.
Several of my hon. Friends have spoken about hunter-killer submarines. They have said that if we build Trident submarines at Vickers there will not be sufficient capacity. Apparently the Government do not intend to provide other capacity. It is argued that we shall not have the capacity to continue to build the hunter-killers and there are misgivings. Is the Minister satisfied that the hunter-killer programme can continue if the Government go ahead with Trident II, bearing in mind that the only yard that can build for both projects is Vickers?
I think that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was fair and right when he said—perhaps I would not agree with the phrase that he used—that part of the problem at the dockyards is that of management. I do not want to put ideas in the head of the Government, but one of the difficulties is running a commercial operation within the structure of the Civil Service. There are other trading organisations within the Civil Service and one example is the Royal Mint.
We are orthodox in the way in which we consider these matters. I am not saying that these organisations should be taken out of the Civil Service. Indeed, there are advantages in retaining them within it. None the less, it is difficult to structure management and run these organisations within the Civil Service. The French do it flir better than we do, but they have a different set-up. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should re-examine the way in which we run these organisations. Having done that perhaps we shall be able to reduce dockyard costs and run the yards more efficiently without having to adopt the ridiculous policy of closure.
The Government have tried to suggest that the consequences of the Falklands campaign are not especially important. That is not right, because money will have to be spent on them and many of the relevant factors have been mentioned in the debate. Mention has been made of HMS "Invincible". If it had not been for the Falkland Islands campaign, "invincible' would have been sold to


the Australians. Why have the Government decided to upgrade the type 23 frigate? I do not argue against that decision, but it must be the result of some of the lessons of the Falklands.
I ask rhetorically—I accept that the Minister may not be able to answer this question now—how the Government propose to replace the two frigates and two destroyers that were lost off the Falklands. Will these ships be replaced by type 23s, type 22s or some other sort of warship? There is a need for airborne early warning systems against low-level air attacks to give defensive fighters sufficient time to meet attacking aircraft. Unfortunately, money will have to be spent—I think that the Government intend to do this—to protect warships against sea-skimming missiles and aircraft. I am told that, despite the complications, a gun is sometimes as effective against such attacks as other weapons. I am sure that the Government are considering that.
There will be a need to revise warship construction to reduce fire hazards when a ship is hit. We shall also have to consider helicopter safety, especially during night flying and flying in difficult conditions in poor weather. It will be for the inquiry to decide whether improvements are necessary.
The 1982 defence review should never have been published. It is wholly irrelevant. The 1981 defence review will have to be rewritten. It cannot remain as it is. That is not because of the Falkland Islands conflict, but because it has highlighted the major errors in that review. We can all learn from hindsight. That review will have to be looked at again.
Defence strategy is not just a technical and intellectual matter. At the end of the day, defence must reflect—everyone must live with this—the geography, tradition, history and realities of the country in respect of which that defence is created. It cannot be otherwise. The Government have tried to struggle against that. They are fighting a losing battle. They might as well accept the fact that this country must have a maritime defence policy, not struggle against it and change their course. The sooner they do so, the better.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): We have had an interesting debate. It was right, in the interests of more hon. Members being able to speak, for the time taken by the wind-up speeches to be curtailed. However, that poses a problem. I shall do my best to refer to all the speeches that have been made.
No sooner was the Falklands conflict successfully completed than the retired senior officers who had been commentating on the progress of operations switched their attention to proclaiming, usually in the correspondence columns of the national press, that their former service had been exclusively responsible for the victory. While I accept that once one retired officer has sounded off, the others feel honour bound to have their say, I cannot believe that this sort of debate is other than pointless.
The Falklands campaign was a joint operation in every sense of that term. Ascension Island was an essential base. Royal Air Force air movements peaked at 400 a day—that compares with an average of 750 movements a day at Heathrow—and played a crucial role in rapid re-supply

with air drops to the task force, not to mention RAF Harrier pilots, maritime reconnaissance, in-flight refuelling and all the purely Royal Air Force aspects of the operation that will no doubt be highlighted in the Air Force debate later this week.
The Army contribution was vital in terms of achieving the land victory, but I think everyone is agreed that if we had not been able to put together a task force of sufficient strength the operation would have had no hope of success, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said in his powerful speech. I also believe that if the task force had not possessed its own organic air it would not have been able to carry through its task.
Although anyone can appreciate the basic role of the task force as the carrier of the troops and their supplies, the ships were also essential to the command, control and communications aspects of the battle. The ships gave essential fire support to troops going ashore and by attacking the runway at Port Stanley. Ships provided protective screens against Argentine submarines and took a heavy toll of attacking aircraft.
All of these factors have to be taken into account, because only surface ships could have carried out these tasks, and talk of them being "vulnerable" is over simplistic. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "vulnerable" as meaning
susceptible of injury, not proof against weapon".
I should like to know what weapon system is not vulnerable in modern warfare.
The key question is to ensure that our surface ships have weapon systems that give them the best possible protection rather than getting into abstruse debates about the future of the surface ship.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised a series of questions. One was about fire. There have been criticisms that our ship designs do not pay sufficient attention to fire safety. For example, some newspapers have pointed to the presence of certain combustible materials on board ship. I can assure the House, however, that the Royal Navy has for long been well aware of the hazards of fire on board and has devoted much effort to minimising the risks from combustible materials. But many combustible items on board ship do not have readily identifiable replacements. Three-quarters of the combustible element of a ship is necessarily comprised of fuel, ammunition, and lubricants, which plainly cannot be disposed of. We devote much effort to protecting them as best we can.
Reference has also been made in the press and elsewhere to the contribution of aluminium to ship fires. That was highlighted in the debate. It is well to remember that HMS "Sheffield", as the hon. Member for West Lothian emphasised, was an all-steel ship. Only one class of warship, the type 21 frigate, has an aluminium superstructure. One of the hon. Gentleman's questions was dealt with extremely effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) when he reminded the hon. Gentleman that the reason why there was no adequate airborne early warning was a decision taken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he was Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is it still proposed that HMS "Phoenix", the damage control centre, should be closed? Is that not an extraordinary proposal at a time such as this?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) also referred to HMS "Phoenix". There has been a persistent misunderstanding about the future of damage control training following the proposed closure of HMS "Phoenix". The intention is, and always has been, to retain all the training simulators and other practical training equipment on the "Phoenix" site. Only the theoretical and classroom training will be moved to the nearby HMS "Nelson", thereby saving on manpower. The full range of damage control training will continue, modified or even intensified in the light of any lessons from the South Atlantic.
I have spoken entirely in terms of the task force, but we must not ignore the crucial role of our nuclear submarines, which effectively swept the sea clear of Argentine warships by their very presence. The vital role played by the surface ship in the task force is not meant to imply that no questions have been raised as a result of the Falklands conflict on matters such as warship design, outfitting and weapon fits. Many hon. Members have raised such questions in the debate.
Over the years, modern technology has led to a major reduction in weight of many equipments, several of which are close to the centre of gravity of a warship. Steam turbines have given way to much lighter gas turbine diesel installations; gun systems with ammunition have given way to missiles; older computers are now replaced by microprocessors; and heavy cables are replaced by the data bus. In total, these produce considerable weight savings below main deck level.
If a vessel is to retain its stability, given similar hull forms, such weight reductions low down in the ship must be matched by savings in higher placed weights, generally weapons and over-water sensors. The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors at Bath is dedicated to the long narrow hull on the basis that speed is a function of length, even though length will increase size and cost. Many other navies take this long and thin view, but that does not necessarily mean that the traditional philosophies are sacrosanct for all time.
There are signs that the school of thought that lays greater emphasis on beam width and, therefore, on unstable payload may be about to come into its own. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton made an interesting point on this topic. The Government believe that it is necessary to encourage much fresh thinking. Similarly, we need radical assessments of potential fire hazards and the compatibility of modern weapons systems.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton went to the Lord Hill-Norton point by asking whether we could refute his Lordship's claim that, had the Falklands crisis occurred three years or so from now, we would not have been able to meet the challenge. I attempted to meet that point on the second day of the defence debate, when I said that we would then be losing four ships out of 42—with the "Invincible" decision, it is now three—and I asked the House rhetorically whether it seriously believed that, by the end of 1984, we would not be able to mount an operation similar to that mounted in the South Atlantic this year with three fewer warships than we now possess. The answer to Lord Hill-Norton should be along those lines.
My right hon. Friend spoke of his wartime service on Woolworth carriers and, as he will remember from our service on the Public Accounts Committee, condemned the danger of gold-plating. He also extolled the virtues of the Arapaho project and reminded the House of the great

importance of merchant ship conversions. He also drew attention to the urgent necessity of having airborne early warning. As my right hon. Friend said on another occasion, the Searchwater radar has been tested in a Sea King as one possible method by which we might try to achieve early warning cover.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton asked whether we intended to reintroduce a sea-going heavy repair capability. Some time ago we disposed of HMS "Triumph", but during the Falklands operation a sea-going heavy repair facility was provided rapidly from commercial sources. We are examining this facility keenly to see whether we can use it more permanently.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) spoke cogently and reminded the House that when we came to office in May 1979 the morale of the Armed Forces—exemplified by the low retention rate, and the queues of people waiting to get out of the Services—was at rock bottom. The Armed Forces will take years to put those shortages right. We are still suffering from the shortages of skilled men in the junior ranks as well as at senior NCO level that we inherited from the Labour Government.

Mr. Duffy: Opposition Members have examined the period that the Minister described and checked with Service men who were leaving at the time. We found that they were leaving partly because they were attracted to jobs outside that do not exist now.

Mr. Pattie: One must ask why they were attracted away from the Service to those jobs if they were satisfied with their lot. It has often been said, and rightly, that people do not join the Armed Forces to become rich, but they do at least like to feel that their contribution to society is properly valued.
It was scandalous when we came into office to find that, contrasted with comparable jobs in civilian life. Armed Forces pay had deteriorated by more than 30 per cent. No matter what equipment we have, that is a crippling legacy. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) asked whether it was true that during the Falklands campaign we relied upon the courage and training of our forces to remedy the defects of our equipment. The answer is "No". We had to rely very much on that skill and motivation, but not in order to remedy defects of equipment. That worked extremely well.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester spoke about replacing HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". As those vessels are planned to continue in service for many years to come, the question of their early replacement does not arise.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there were no deficiencies in the equipment that was supplied? That cannot possibly be true.

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is reading something into what I did not say. I did not say that there were no deficiencies. I believed that I had summarised to his satisfaction what he said in his speech. He suggested that we were relying on the courage and training of our forces to remedy the defects of our equipment. I said that, as a general proposition, that was not true.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was kind enough to refer to my modest publication of 1976. He did not tell me that he


would act as my literary agent, although I fear that we are now on the remainder desk. Perhaps I could quote the opening section of the book:
An incoming Conservative government will have as its main task the restatement of certain facts of economic life, facts which have been too long removed from the awareness of a public fed on a diet of increasing expectations. This is going to be a profoundly uncomfortable process for everyone. It is at times of economic retrenchment that defence budgets in democracies are at their most vulnerable. All the spending departments are cut and squeezed and it becomes harder for those, with little sympathy for defence, to see the benefits to the people in defence expenditure. Any Government which has to take account of public opinion, must be engaged frequently in exercises of resource allocation. Where defence is concerned, such allocations must take into account external considerations, that is treaty obligations and alliance commitments as well as domestic considerations which relate in essence to the perceived nature of the threat.
On page 16—[Interruption.] I am responding line by line to the points raised. This part is worth hearing:
The main possibility of 'finlandisation' would seem, therefore, to be the strangulation of the sea lanes which supply Western Europe. There would seem to be overwhelming arguments for increasing the naval presence in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel, although whether, in the case of the Royal Navy the present mix of surface vessels is the right one, is another matter. The concentration on 'ships of high quality' could be a mistake if the increased vulnerability of large surface ships is accepted. More smaller ships and more submarines could be the order of the day.
My right hon. Friend's advice to the House and to Defence Ministers about the costs of Treasury delays was masterly. I hope that the Treasury paid the same attention to what he said as I did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) made a valuable speech and drew our attention to the vital importance of the Merchant Marine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to that important speech.

Sir Frederick Burden: Not only my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) but others have said that in the present circumstances Chatham dockyard should be kept open to ensure the future of our nuclear hunter-killer submarines. Will my hon. Friend now give an undertaking that no more redundancy notices to workers in that section of the yard will be issued, at least until we debate the White Paper in the autumn?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend knows that I can go no further than what my right hon. Friend said about that matter in his statement to the House.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) rightly praised the Royal Marines. There can be no doubt about their future or their place in our Forces' structure for all time. The right hon. Gentleman asked about HMS "Invincible". Hitherto, with our pressing demands on the defence budget, which we have explained to the House many times, we have taken the view, with both carriers normally available for service two-thirds of the time, we cannot retain the third. That was the basis of my right hon. Friend's White Paper, Cmnd. 8288, last summer. We should have preferred to reserve our position until the full Falkland assessment was completed some time in the autumn. Not unreasonably, the Australians asked for an indication of our intention. We have given it.
The right hon. Member for Devonport asked about the dockyards and whether a special fund would be devised.

He also raised important questions that have dogged people who have studied the dockyards—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who made an excellent study of the dockyards—such as the problem of skill shortages, how one can attract people to the docks and the vital importance of allowing the dockyards to manage themselves. If they remain an extension of or as some type of outpost of the Civil Service, those problems will always remain.
The right hon. Members for Devonport and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked about reordering and why we cannot have immediate orders. The right hon. Member for Devonport asked the question and then went on to answer it. He said that we should possibly place less emphasis on destroyers and more on frigates. That is a reasonable point of view. It is precisely that point of which we must be certain. It is reasonable to take account of the lessons of the Falklands before coming to a final decision. That is why none of the orders will be unreasonably or unnecessarily delayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) did his usual excellent job for the Tyne by extolling the capabilities and virtues not only of the yards on that famous river but by saying that they stood ready to receive further orders or repair work.
When he opened the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that I would refer to some of the exercises in which the Royal Navy had engaged in the past year. I shall honour that remit. The Royal Navy has been engaged in NATO and multinational exercises in the Eastern Atlantic, the Norwegian Sea, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. It has also been engaged in exercises Ocean Venture and Ocean Safari, which were designed to demonstrate the ability of Western maritime forces to keep open lines of communications in the Western Atlantic. In the latter operation, more than 19,000 personnel, 83 ships and 200 aircraft from eight countries, including France, took part. The Soviet navy also participated, albeit as an uninvited player. It followed the proceedings with a keen and, I trust, admiring interest and gave our vessels useful practice.
The Royal Navy has continued throughout the year to maintain a patrol of two warships in the Indian Ocean, although, following a recent and generous offer by the New Zealand Government, one of them has been replaced by the Royal New Zealand Navy Ship "Canterbury".
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) returned to the matter of the "Endurance". I shall quote from the part of the letter that refers to the return of the "Endurance" which my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It said:
As I am sure you know, it is a long-standing practice not to give advance information about ship movements; and the need for caution has been reinforced by the uncertainty of Argentine intentions, even if Argentina has effectively announced the de facto cessation of hostilities. Although, as you pointed out "Endurance" has been in the South Atlantic longer than any other ship in the Task Force, I do not feel justified in making an exception in her case. As you can imagine, we are receiving an enormous number of inquiries about return dates from the families of personnel serving in ships in the Task Force and in Army units. What I can say, and I hope this will give the families some comfort, is that the intention is that 'Endurance' should return to the UK as soon as possible and I hope to be able to be rather more definite by about the end of the month.
That is not long, and I hope that the reply will be accepted.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli in his opening speech returned to Trident—whether we should have it, how the expenditure should be controlled, and so on. Of course, he is entitled to make virtually the same speech whichever branch of the Armed Services is under discussion. Whether we are discussing the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, he always comes back to Trident.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The answers are always the same.

Mr. Pattie: Yes, the answers are always the same. The right hon. Gentleman simply will not accept them. Nevertheless, the answers are always given. On cost escalation, the right hon. Gentleman knows that allowance is made for escalation due to exchange rate movements, inflation, and so on—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Later—

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the House begins to debate the procedures that relate very much to the rights of Back Benchers, may I draw your attention to the fact that in the debate on the Navy Estimates on which 317 minutes were allowed, and making no criticism whatever of the selection by the Chair, and remembering particularly the requests made by yourself and the Deputy Speakers for brevity, out of 17 speakers, 10 were Front Benchers, Privy Councillors or former Ministers? The Front Benchers took 102 minutes and the Privy Councillors and former Ministers 106 minutes, leaving a small residue to the Back Benchers who had sat throughout the debate and did not have the opportunity to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know how those whom he mentions can do it when they look at the faces of their colleagues who are waiting to speak.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that, when right hon. Members are called because they are Privy Councillors, they should not take advantage of it by the length of their speeches.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Aviation Security Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thompson.]

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 21.

Division No. 279]
[10 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Ancram, Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Buck, Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burden, Sir Frederick


Beith, A. J.
Butcher, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cartwright, John


Blackburn, John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Brinton, Tim
Cockeram, Eric


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Cope, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crawshaw, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Brotherton, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen





du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Normanton, Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Nott, Rt Hon John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Ogden, Eric


Eggar, Tim
Onslow, Cranley


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Osborn, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eyre, Reginald
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Paisley, Rev Ian


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Freud, Clement
Pawsey, James


Ginsburg, David
Penhaligon, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Percival, Sir Ian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Goodlad, Alastair
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Gorst, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gray, Hamish
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Greenway, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Roper, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gummer, John Selwyn
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Sandelson, Neville


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hayhoe, Barney
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heddle, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Speed, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Speller, Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Stanley, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Martin


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


(Hillhead)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thompson, Donald


Knight, Mrs Jill
Thornton, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawrence, Ivan
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Lee, John
Trippier, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Waddington, David


McCrindle, Robert
Wakeham, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Walker, B. (Perth)


MacGregor, John
Warren, Kenneth


Maclennan, Robert
Watson, John


McNally, Thomas
Wells, Bowen


Major, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Wheeler, John


Mates, Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Mather, Carol
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wilkinson, John


Mellor, David
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wolfson, Mark


Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Monro, Sir Hector
Younger, Rt Hon George


Moore, John



Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Ian Lang and


Myles, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Neale, Gerrard







NOES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Canavan, Dennis
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cryer, Bob
Rooker, J. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Short, Mrs Renée


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Winnick, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.



Eastham, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Evans, John (Newton)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mr. David Stoddart.


Home Robertson, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Aviation Security Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
By enacting the Bill we shall continue the process of tidying up the state of our legislation. The Bill repeals and replaces three Acts and brings into the one place parts of others. It is a pure consolidation measure. The Joint Committee, to which we are, as always, most grateful, has so certified.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant of Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — House of Commons (Procedure)

10.15 pm


The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,


That from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order be made:


(1) Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August, shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates.


(2) On any such day—


(a) consideration of estimates or reports of the Liaison Committee relating thereto shall stand as first business;


(b) other business may be taken before ten o'clock only if the consideration of estimates has been concluded; and


(c) questions necessary to dispose of proceedings (other than a dilatory motion) on the estimates appointed for consideration under paragraph (1A) of Standing Order No. 86E (Liaison Committee) shall be deferred until ten o'clock.


(3) On a day not later than 6th February, any of the following total amounts may be put down for consideration:


(a) votes on account for the coming financial year;


(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven clear days previously.


(4) On a day not later than 18th March any of the following numbers or total amounts may put down for consideration:


(a) votes relating to numbers for defence services for the coming financial year;


(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven clear days previously;


(c) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts have reported that they see no objection to the sums necessary being provided by excess vote.


(5) On a day not later than 5th August, the total amount of estimates which are still outstanding may be put down for consideration.


(6) At least two days' notice shall be given of the votes which are to be put down for consideration under paragraphs (3), (4) or (5) of this order.


(7) On any day to which the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4) or (5) of this order apply Mr. Speaker shall at ten o'clock put the following questions:


(a) on any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services for the corning financial year, that that number be maintained for that service;


(b) that the total amount outstanding in respect of each financial year be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes defined in the related votes.


(8) On any day on which Mr. Speaker is directed under paragraph (7) of this order to put any question, no dilatory motion shall be made and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any standing order.


(9) The provisions of this order shall not apply to any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates for war expenditure.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the following amendments thereto:

(a), in line 3, leave out 'Three' and insert 'Five'.
(b), in line 9, leave out from 'concluded' to end of line 12.
(c), in line 12, at end insert—

'(2A) There shall be a committee, to be called the Estimates Business Committee, consisting of eight Members nominated by the Committee of Selection in accordance with Standing Order No. 86D (Motions for nominations). The quorum of the committee shall be four. The committee shall report their recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made for the consideration of such report the question shall be put forthwith "That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee" and if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.'.
We are also debating the following motions:
That relating to Supply and Ways and Means—
From the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 17 (Appointment of supply and ways and means) shall be repealed and Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions) be amended by inserting, in line 1, at the beginning—
'(1) A ways and means motion may be made in the House without notice on any day as soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's speech'.
That relating to the Liaison Committee—
From the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 86E (Liaison Committee) shall be amended by inserting, at the end of line 8—
'(1A) The Committee shall report their recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made that the House do agree with any such report the question shall be put forthwith and, if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.'




That relating to Periodic Adjournments—


From the beginning of next Session, whenever a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings shall be put not later than one and a half hours after being proposed from the Chair.


That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.


The following amendments thereto:
(d), in line 3, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 4 and insert
'not be put until Members who wish to speak have been called by the Chair'.
(e), in line 3, leave out fom 'put' to end of line 4 and insert
'three hours after they have been entered upon, if not previously concluded'.
(f), in line 3, leave out 'one and a half' and insert 'three'.
That relating to Consolidated Fund Bills—
From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order be made:


That relating to Opposition Days—


From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business), shall be amended by adding at the end of line 3—


'(2) Matters selected by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition shall have precedence over government business on nineteen allotted days in each session provided that—


(a) two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day, and


(b) not more than two days so allotted may be taken in the form of four half days on any day other than a Friday'.


The following amendments thereto:
(g), in line 3, leave out from '(2)' to 'provided' in line 4 and insert
'Nineteen allotted days in each session shall be at the disposal of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and matters selected on these days shall have precedence over government business.'.
(h), in line 3, leave out
'Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition'
and insert 'Opposition Parties'.
(i), in line 8, at end add—
'(3) The allocation of days and half days between the various Opposition parties shall be made by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in consultation with the other Opposition parties in the House and having regard to the number of seats each party holds in the House.'.
If amendment (g) were to be carried, I would still allow a Division on amendment (i).
That relating to Questions on Amendments—
From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amendments) shall be amended, in line 9, by leaving out from 'allotted' to the end of line 11 and inserting 'for consideration of matters selected by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition under Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business)'.
Amendment (j) thereto, in line 5, leave out 'Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition' and insert 'Opposition Parties'.
That relating to Private Business—
From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 7 (Private Business) shall be amended, in line 43, by leaving out from 'between' to end of line 45 and inserting 'the sittings on which Government business has precedence and other sittings'.
That relating to Selection of Amendments—
From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 33 (Selection of Amendments) shall be amended, in line 27, by leaving out 'business of supply' and inserting 'estimates'.
That relating to Exempted Business—


(1) On any day on which the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appro-priation Bill stands as the first order of the day, the question thereon shall be put forthwith upon the reading of that order, no order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith.
(2) At the conclusion of proceedings on a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, a member of the Government may move 'That this House do now adjourn', the motion shall not lapse at ten o'clock, and if proceedings have not been concluded by nine o'clock in the morning at that sitting, the motion shall lapse at that hour.

From the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall be amended by inserting at the end of line 74 'provided that on any day on which Mr. Speaker is directed to put questions at ten o'clock pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Consideration of Estimates), any such motion shall stand over until those questions have been decided'.

Mr. Biffen: The motions that we are debating are a follow-up to the take-note debate on the recommendations of the first report from the Select Committee on Supply Procedure that took place on 15 February.
Hon. Members will recall that the principal recommendations in that report were that there should in future be eight annual "Estimates days" on the Floor of the House devoted to the consideration of Main and Supplementary Estimates; that the present Second Reading debates on Consolidated Fund Bills should be replaced by an appropriate allocation of additional time to private Members; and that the present 29 so-called "Supply" days should be replaced by 19 "Opposition" days, and various regular items of House business traditionally taken in Supply time transferred to Government time.
During that debate my predecessor as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), indicated the Government's general support for the principles of the Committee's recommendations but put forward for consideration various alternative suggestions on matters of detail. In particular, he indicated the Government's provisional view that, at least from the outset, it would not be prudent to allocate as many as eight days to the proposed new Estimates days.
My right hon. Friend also put forward the proposal that the recommendations to the House on the use of these


chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), than by a new Estimates business committee, as recommended in the Supply Procedure Committee's report.
In the course of the take note debate in February there seems to have emerged a clear general view that the House broadly accepted in principle the desirability of the changes proposed in this report, at least as a first stage in the Committee's review of our financial procedures as a whole. Widely differing views were, however, expressed about the most appropriate number of the proposed Estimates days, and a number of hon. Members criticised the Government's proposal of three such days as an inadequate response to the Committee's recommendations. My predecessor undertook to reconsider the Government's provisional views in the light of the debate and to table amendable motions on which the House would be able to reach substantive conclusions. That we have now done.
In particular, we have given considerable further thought as to whether we should propose to the House more than the three Estimates days that we originally recommended. The Government regard the proposals on Estimates days as very important. The concept of such days is fully accepted. In no sense do I regard the proposed arrangements as provisional and linked to changes of an experimental nature. The question is—how much time should be made over to Estimates days whilst we gain experience of this innovation?
The Government's motion proposes that there should be three such days, whereas the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and other right hon. and hon. Members would have the effect of increasing this to five. I suggest, however, that this is basically something which can be proved only by experience of the new procedure.
It is moreover, bound to be a question of conflicting priorities, and of the relative importance which individual hon. Members personally attach to specific aspects of their work here.
There is no doubt, however, that whatever time we decide to devote to these new procedures it can only be at the expense of other parliamentary business. There is no hidden reserve of available parliamentary time, and I do not believe that the House would generally welcome an increase either in our sitting hours or in the length of our sessions.
On balance, therefore, our further consideration has confirmed our earlier view that, at least as a beginning, it would be in the best interests of the House for this new procedure to start on the basis of three days, and the motions now before the House provide accordingly.
The motions effect changes to Standing Orders, but I emphasise to the House that if experience shows that the three Estimate days are inadequate the House would no doubt quickly find ways of altering the position. I suggest that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said, before making any still greater demands on parliamentary time we should first establish with the certainties of experience that the new days meet a real need and can be organised in a way that commands the general support of the House.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Has the Leader of the House made a calculation of the amount of time that the Government gained on the Finance Bill, the Committee stage of which took place mainly upstairs?

Mr. Biffen: No, I have not. I have no doubt that such an analysis can be made. My impression is that the time thus made available was not taken up wholly by the Government.
For the avoidance of doubt I should perhaps also point out that it will still be essential for the Government to receive the necessary Supply by the traditional dates in the parliamentary year. There will still accordingly need to be three "guillotine Supply days". On such days it is intended that there will if necessary be an appropriate business motion to ensure that the necessary questions on outstanding Votes and Estimates be put forthwith. But such days will not be "Estimate days" in the proposed new sense of the term.
We have also reconsidered the question of which body of the House would be the appropriate Committee to advise the House on the way in which the new Estimates days should be used—which departmental Estimates should be debated and how the time should be allocated. The Government's view remains that the task would be nost appropriately undertaken by the Liaison Committee, rather than by a new Business Committee, as proposed in the Procedure Committee report and also in the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other right hon. and hon. Members.
I fully recognise that it is for departmental Select Committees to decide what priority they accord in their work to the consideration of departmental Estimates. It would seem likely, however, that the introduction of the proposed new Estimates days—and the greater opportunities for the debating of departmental Estimates on the Floor of the House that they will provide—will encourage Seclect Committees to increase scrutiny in this field.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend merely says ex cathedra that the Government take the view that the Liaison Committee is preferable to what the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) recommended. But he has not shared with the House his reasons for so judging.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is always very fair in these matters. I hope that he will allow me to proceed because to some extent he has anticipated the general thread of the argument.
It would, therefore, seem appropriate that the House should be advised on the allocation of time on these estimates days by the body which is in the best position to assess the relative importance attached by the departmental Select Committees to the need for the House to debate particular Estimates. If the House adopts this proposal I believe that we should take a further valuable step towards the closer integration of the work of the departmental Select Committees with the general procedures of the House as a whole.

Mr. John Golding: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the view of the Liaison Committee itself? Does that Committee believe that it is the best body to do this work?

Mr. Biffen: I have not been in formal discussions with the Liaison Committee, but I have no doubt that there are members of the Committee present who can take part in the debate and who will give their own judgments.
The proposed amendments to Standing Orders required to effect the various procedural changes now proposed strike me, and no doubt many other hon. Members, as somewhat daunting, at least in their length. Much of their effect is, however, to get rid of procedural dead wood—changes of form rather than substance. Nevertheless, it would perhaps be of help to the House if I were, very briefly, to comment seriatim on their procedural effect. The intention is that they should, if the House approves them, come into force at the beginning of next Session.
The first motion—Consideration of Estimates—contains the provision for the proposed three new Estimates days. Hon. Members will note that it is proposed that all questions arising from the various debates during each of these days would be put together at 10 o'clock. I note that the amendment on this point, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other right hon. and hon. Members, amendment (b), would have the effect of eliminating this proposal. But, whilst contrary to existing practice, I believe that this arrangement would be for the general convenience of the House on these days.

Mr. Michael English: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only real precedent for this is the marvellous idea of the late Dick Crossman, when he was Leader of the House, that we should all meet in the mornings and vote in the afternoons?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. That was in the context of morning sittings. Whilst I am always happy to accept compliments, however oblique, I do not immediately aspire to comparison with that great reforming Leader of the House. Although he had many formidable parliamentary qualities, I do not believe that the present proposal to vote in the evening after a day's debate on the Estimates bears comparison with the gap in time between the discussion and the vote which arose from the experiment with morning sittings.
It will still remain necessary to ensure that essential Supply is regularly granted to the Government of the day, provided that it has the support of the House. This requires regular financial and practical deadlines. This motion accordingly also provides for the continuance of the necessary Supply guillotine dates.
The second motion, entitled "Supply and Ways and Means", is effectively designed to effect a drafting change. Since the historic concept of Supply days would be effectively superseded by the other changes now proposed, it would no longer be necessary for the business of Supply to be regularly appointed as an Order of the Day, and the existing reference to Ways and Means resolutions in Standing Order No. 17 would seem to find a more appropriate home in Standing Order No. 94 dealing with Ways and Means motions generally.
The motion dealing with the role of the Liaison Committee concerns the way in which that Committee should advise the House as to the allocation of time on the proposed new Estimates days.
The next motion concerns the proposal made by the Committee that, in future, debates providing for the date

of recesses should be limited to one and a half hours. It has been objected that that is too restrictive. This matter is, of course, entirely a matter for the House, and the Government would certainly not wish to stand against the general wishes. Amendment (e) to the motion on periodic Adjournments, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, provides for three hours, and offers, in my view, an entirely acceptable way of proceeding, and I believe that it meets the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) expressed in his amendment.
The next motion relates to the Committee's proposal that the present form of Second Reading debates on Consolidated Fund Bills, which are, of course, no longer primarily concerned with financial control, should be dispensed with, and compensated for by a corresponding addition to Private Members' time.
The effect of this motion would accordingly be that proceedings on the Second Reading and later stages of Consolidated Fund Bills or an Appropriation Bill would be formal, and that the remaining time on each of these three days should be available to Private Members on the basis of an Adjournment motion until 9 o'clock the following morning. It would, in addition, be the Government's intention for a further Friday to be made available in future for Private Members' business.
These proposals are clearly a matter for the convenience of the House, but I hope that hon. Members will agree that, if adopted, they would be reasonably generous compensation for the loss of opportunities to Private Members arising from the formalisation of proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bill. How debates on these occasions could be timetabled would be a matter for the House, but it might be for the convenience of the House if the practice adopted followed that at present successfully used in the case of Recess Adjournment debates.
The final four motions on the Order Paper—those relating to questions on amendments, private business, selection of amendments and exempted business—in my name are consequential minor procedural and drafting amendments. The final remaining motion of substance—and perhaps in some ways potentially the most controversial—is that dealing with the arrangements for Opposition Days.
In principle what is proposed here, in accordance with the Procedure Committee's recommendation, is that the present misleading nomenclature of "Supply Days" should be done away with, and that a new concept of 19 "Opposition Days" should be introduced in its place.
The general aim of the change, however, is to leave the present broad balance between Government and Opposition time effectively as at present.
It was accordingly proposed by the Procedure Committee, and accepted by the Government, that a number of regular debates traditionally taken in Opposition Supply time—such as debates on the Armed Forces, European Community matters and Select Committees and occupying, in total, about nine days each session—should in future be taken in Government time.
Doubts have, I understand, been expressed, however, about whether, notwithstanding this assurance, the Opposition would not be the losers in this change in so far as they would lose their influence over the timing of these annual debates at present taken in Supply time.
As I have previously indicated, the general aim of this motion is to get rid of obsolete terms but, as far as possible, to retain the effective status quo.

Mr. A. J. Beith: If the right hon. Gentleman's intention is to retain the status quo, why has he tabled a motion so phrased as to exclude any party other than the Labour Party choosing a subject for a Supply Day even when that party deigns to give a Supply Day to one of the minority parties? If his intention is to be purely neutral and neither to strengthen nor to weaken the present position of the minority parties, why has the right hon. Gentleman so worded his motion as to exclude their choosing a subject on such a day?

Mr. Biffen: That is not the position. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the remarks that I make subsequently. I make no objection to the intervention, but I assure him that I shall touch upon, at least by implication, the point that exercises him.
I accordingly undertake—and I understand that this would be acceptable to the Opposition—that, as far as possible, the Opposition's "say" in the timing of business traditionally taken on ex-Supply Days should remain as at present. Thus, the Opposition would have a veto on any Government proposal to use a particular day for such business, and both Government and Opposition would thus retain their present power of veto over the use of particular days for all the former purposes of Supply Days.
I also give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the practice with regard to the use of Government and Opposition time for opposed private business should effectively remain as at present. Contrariwise, I would hope that the tradition would continue that, if necessary, Opposition days could continue to be made available for general House business, for example in the case of exceptional major debates extending over several days.
I am sure that it will have been carefully noted that this motion would leave unchanged the present position whereby any allocation of Opposition days to other parties is left at the discretion of the Opposition.
I fully recognise, as did my predecessor, my personal responsibilities to the House as a whole as Leader of the House in this contentious matter. I believe I can best discharge that responsibility in accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, by tabling this amendable motion, on the basis proposed by the Procedure Committee, and leaving it to the House to come to a decision. I have no doubt that a number of right hon. and hon. Members will wish to speak to their amendments on the Order Paper which deal with this point. I should say straightaway that the Government would be entirely content to accept amendment (g) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and I would only add that I have received an assurance from the Opposition that, if the House approved this motion, they would continue to abide by the present conventions on this matter.
For some years the allocation of Opposition time has worked through the Opposition. Clearly it is a matter that will be considered in the light of the popular and parliamentary strength of the smaller parties. Decisions taken this evening will not bind a successor Parliament. The House, none the less, may wish to reflect on whether the declining phase of the present Parliament should be used for a major innovation. Furthermore, the House may wish to reflect on whether it is appropriate to implement

such an innovation in a situation where one of the smaller parties has been created almost entirely by secession rather than by popular election. This, however, is for the House to decide without prejudice for the future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it only remains for me to thank once more on behalf of the House my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee for their work on this major report on which tonight's debate is founded. This First Report is part of a far more wide-ranging review of our financial procedures on which the Committee is currently at work, and which the House has recognised by establishing the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament. The proposals now before the House will, however, I believe, in themselves provide the basis for a helpful improvement in our procedure for the control of expenditure, and I commend them to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing motions Nos. 3 to 12. We shall deal with the first series of amendments. The other amendments will be moved formally at the end of the debate for those who wish to divide the House.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: As the House will recognise and as the speech made by the Leader of the House recognised, this debate focuses on an issue which is central to the whole concept of parliamentary democracy—the allocation of that precious but limited resource, parliamentary time.
I listened to the contributions to the debate made in this Chamber on the Supply procedure debate on 15 February. On that occasion. I shared what I can perhaps describe as the rhetorical wringing of hands at a situation in which at present 29 parliamentary days each Session are allocated for consideration of Government Estimates, but in reality few, if any, of those allocated days are used for that purpose. I believe that no hon. Member can defend a situation in which public money is virtually—this has been the case—nodded through, voted on the nod. Nor can we justify the erosion of parliamentary time used for the scrutiny of Estimates which has taken place over recent years. But embarked as we are in changing procedures that go back as far as the Plantagenet kings, I believe that we must seek to ensure that we get right any restructuring of our procedures.
At this juncture I wish to acknowledge the assurances that the Leader of the House gave during the course of his speech and which I sought during the Supply procedure debate on 15 February. I was pleased to note the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the allocation of specific days as Opposition days will not rule out the possibility of the exchange of Estimates days for Opposition time. Secondly, his other assurance was equally welcome, where he indicated that opposed private business time should not come out of the parliamentary time envisaged to be allocated as Opposition time.
Having made that point, I want to come to some of the issues which will no doubt be the subject of somewhat longer debate as we proceed in our consideration of the individual motions that are before us.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I did not understand the Leader of the House to say what my tight hon. Friend has said about opposed private business. I


thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that opposed private business would continue to be taken roughly equally out of Government time and Supply time or Opposition time. That means that out of Opposition days will be taken a chunk for opposed private business. That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say.

Mr. Morris: I am prepared to give way to the Leader of the House if I have misinterpreted the assurances that he gave, but I believe that my interpretation is the correct one. If I may continue, I would wish to comment on the amendment seeking to increase the number of days allocated for the consideration of Estimates from three days to five. I am mindful of the opening words of paragraph 55 of the Procedure Committee's report, where it says:
It is difficult to assess in advance the right number of days to spend on the estimates".
I noted that the Leader of the House shared this view. I am mindful equally that there are many who believe that three days for considering Estimates is an inadequate response to the Procedure Committee's recommendation. But I believe that it is not unreasonable for individual Members to be seeking to increase the number of days allocated for the consideration of these Estimates. However, each additional day conceded has to come from somewhere, as the Leader of the House indicated.
While we are united in believing that parliamentary time should be allocated for Estimates, all the evidence before us is that, given a free choice between debating currently controversial political issues and spending parliamentary time on what many might regard as the and world of Government financial statistics, parliamentarians in the past have behaved like politicians and opted for the politically contentious, and by implication demonstrated a seeming reluctance to take on the role of parliamentary auditor. Evidence of attendance and contributions in past debates will bear out that view.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend dismissing as and financial Government business the matter of spending billions of pounds out of the pockets of our constituents? That is what the debate is about. Is he suggesting that we should not spend considerable time on the Floor of the House controlling the money that comes out of the pockets of his friends and mine, whom we represent on our constituencies?

Mr. Morris: With respect, my hon. Friend has completely misrepresented the point that I was making. I was not suggesting any such fact. I was suggesting that the behaviour pattern of parliamentarians during the debates on financial Estimates demonstrates the construction and interpretation that I place on such behaviour patterns.
I believe that it is not unreasonable, initially at least, to allocate three parliamentary days to the consideration of the financial departmental estimates. I take that view solely in the belief, and because of the assurance given by the Leader of the House, that the three days will be on what I would describe as a "subject to review" basis.
There is an argument as to whether we should establish an Estimates business committee in line with the Procedure Committee's recommendation. I am inclined to the view that, given the functions envisaged in paragraph 65 of the report, the liaison committee could be as

effective as the proposed Estimates business committee. My thoughts in that regard are influenced by the fact that the liaison committee represents a wealth of parliamentary experience. It contains individual chairmen of Select Committees, who have certain responsibilities in regard to the scrutiny of departmental financial Estimates.

Mr. Golding: Has my right hon. Friend considered the point of view that those on the Liaison Committee will have a vested interest in their Committees having their reports debated? It will be a great responsibility for those of us on the Liaison Committee to be making impartial judgments and having to report back to our Committee why its report is not to be debated.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I do not envisage that to be a major difficulty, bearing in mind the composition of the Liaison Committee. We have some parliamentarians with great parliamentary experience. While it might be embarrassing in terms of their individual membership of particular Select Committees, that is not an insuperable barrier to the Liaison Committee taking on the additional responsibility.
I shall now deal with the two amendments standing in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I was pleased to listen to the response of the Leader of the House when he said that the Government were prepared to accept the two amendments. In relation to the motion seeking to restrict the recess Adjournment debates, I believe that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that while there are abuses of the recess Adjournment debates, one-and-a-half-hours' restriction is inadequate and three hours represents a more reasonable allocation of time.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to join in his congratulations to the Government on accepting three hours rather than one-and-a-half hours, along the lines of amendment (f) standing in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Morris: With characteristic generosity, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to add his congratulations to the Government.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there seems to be no good reason for any restriction on such debates? It is not as though there is an enormous problem. I have been a Member of the House since 1974, and I know of no occasion on which there has been great controversy about periodic Adjournment debates lasting too long. A three-hour debate will mean that some hon. Members may well be denied an opportunity to participate. It will also give greater power to the Government, who might get an hon. Member to talk the three hours out if they know that a certain subject is to be raised.

Mr. Morris: I accept some of my hon. Friend's points, but there has been abuse of the recess motion debate, particularly when that debate has been followed by the Consolidated Fund Bill debate—

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Morris: Yes, when I finish this point. There have been occasions when hon. Members, who have submitted


items for the Consilidated Fund Bill debate and have come low in the Ballot, have used time in the recess motion debate.
If the Government deliberately put forward a motion to deny Back Benchers, especially Opposition Back Benchers, time to debate the recess motion, I am sure that the Opposition generally would react to any such proposal.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He must give the causes of these things. He knows that as they are both Government business, the Adjournment motions are set down before the Consolidated Fund Bill to save Government time. He must also know that a former Mr. Speaker, now Lord Maybray-King, chose to invent the ballot, with the result that Members of the House of Commons, faced with a Government and Mr. Speaker combining against them, exercised their own wits and proceeded to use unballoted time—the recess motion—to do what hitherto they had been able to do on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional information, of which I was not aware. However, I do not believe that it alters the fact that certain abuses have been evident in recent recess motion debates.
A more major question is perhaps the allocation of parliamentary time to minority Opposition parties. I draw the attention of the House to amendment (g), which acknowledges that the phrase
Matters selected by the Leader Her Majesty's Opposition
might be offensive to the small but proud parliamentary party. Amendment (g) acknowledges the sensitivities of that proud but small parliamentary party.
The present arrangements for the allocation of parliamentary time to the minority Opposition parties have worked reasonably well. Amendment (i) is designed to allocate Parliamentary time to Opposition parties
having regard to the number of seats each party holds in the House".
That has attracted support from four of the minority parties. I question for how long the unanimity of the minority parties that have signed the amendment would hold fast if numerical representation in the House were the determining factor in the allocation of Parliamentary time. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru would be lucky to receive any time on the basis of numerical representation. Even the Social Democratic Party has only two elected Members. Surely no one is suggesting that we shall allocate Parliamentary time on the basis of Members who are not even elected under the Party designation that they have given themselves. Even if I were inclined to support the amendments—I have no such inclination—I cannot envisage an individual who has any regard for constitutional properties considering for a moment the allocation of Parliamentary time to other than elected Members of the House. The Mitcham and Morden byelection shattered the myth—

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: rose—

Mr. Speaker: To whom does the right hon. Gentleman wish to give way?

Mr. Morris: I give way to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was flushed to my feet by the reference to constitutional propriety. It is surely

unconstitutional of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) to suggest that people are elected to the House primarily as members of parties. They are elected as individuals. If, therefore, they subsequently choose to regroup themselves into another party, they are perfectly entitled to do so. They remain elected Members and if the reform is to reflect the division of opinion in the House, the other Opposition parties should have a fair share of Parliamentary time.

Mr. Morris: Historical precedence gives some support and substance to the right hon. Gentleman's point, but that support was weakened when ballot papers at general elections showed the party designation of each candidate.

Mr. George Cunningham: We are all more grown up than to conduct this dispute on that basis. What legitimacy does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he has compared with the position that he has described, standing at the Dispatch Box as the official representative of a party whose policies have changed massively since the election at which he and his colleagues were elected? Who needs a new mandate—the people who have not changed their policies or the party that has?

Mr. Morris: One is staggered by an individual castigating the Labour Party for changing its policies, especially when he has changed his party.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend knows that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) only said what he did because he comes from a borough where a lot of renegades were flung out at the last election.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Everyone will put his own construction on the allocation of time to the minority parties. If one examines the composition of the House, one cannot ignore the fact that Members were elected on party political labels. Plaid Cymru, two; Scottish Nationalists, two; Social Democrats, two; Liberals, 12. Those are the parties that, out of a total of 635 seats, are demanding a greater share of parliamentary time.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. Morris: The present arrangements have worked reasonably well. I give the minority parties the official assurance of the Labour Party that the present conventions on consultation will continue.

Mr. David Steel: rose—

Mr. Morris: The motions cover important issues which I hope the Leader of the House will take into account.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I beg to move amendment (a) to the motion, in line 3, leave out 'Three' and insert 'Five'.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance). That is to be welcomed, as it is no longer a Sessional Committee. It will deal with many important aspects of procedure—not least the recommendations of the Armstrong committee whose report has been commented on by the Select Committee on the


Treasury and Civil Service—and several other aspects of financial matters, especially whether the House should control borrowing. We have never done that before.
The motion proposes a major constitutional change. I thank the Leader of the House for the sympathetic way in which he has considered the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply). We debated these matters in February, and I do not wish to go over them again. Nevertheless, what we have proposed will be a major reassertion of parliamentary power in relation to the Executive. For the first time the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the details of public expenditure as well as on the whole of public expenditure. That represents a considerable change.
I also welcome the change in the Government's attitude since we debated these matters in February, which is reflected in my right hon. Friend's categoric statement that the changes under discussion are not to be regarded as experimental in any sense. That is important, as so often experiments are dropped if they turn out to be unpopular with the Government of the day. That statement by my right hon. Friend, in contrast with what was said before, is very significant and I greatly welcome it.
It is also important that these matters should be settled before the Summer Recess so that we can operate the new system from the beginning of the new Session and see how it works. I believe that this Parliament will be seen historically as the one in which radical procedural changes and improvements were made for the House of Commons. In this context, tribute should be paid to the three successive Leaders of the House—My right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas) and for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House for the contribution that they have made. There has been a rather rapid turnover in holders of the office, but considerable progress has been made.
I wish to deal briefly with the three amendments in my name and those of hon. Members of all parties. I deal first with amendment (a). The Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) considered very carefully the number of Estimates days to be made available for Select Committee reports and individual Members' comments to be discussed on the Floor of the House. We took the view that the right number was eight. That was not proposed as an opening bid but was what we regarded as the right number, having considered the matter in considerable depth.
It may be argued that we should have suggested that figure today, but in the light of the earlier debate and my right hon. Friend's observation that we need to see how things work out, five days seem right in the present circumstances. I hope that the House will support that. We certainly do not want the new procedure to be a flop, which would clearly be a danger if too many Estimates days were allocated. We must bear in mind, however, that there are no fewer than three sets of Supplementary Estimates and about 18 different classes of main Estimates. In those circumstances, an allocation of five days does not seem excessive.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we should not lay down a specific timetable. As we all know, the last set of Supplementary Estimates was very dull indeed, whereas the previous set was quite controversial and some of the Estimates were discussed on the Floor of the House.

Therefore, it is right that we should not be tied down to specific dates. At the same time, however, the Government clearly need to preserve something of the old guillotine procedure so that they get their money at set and appropriate times. I think that my right hon. Friend's suggestion on that is perfectly satisfactory and it is right that the Estimates days should be divorced from the actual fall of the guillotine in relation to the provision of Supply. It was not entirely clear, however, whether my right hon. Friend believed that the guillotine should still be related in some sense to what will now become Opposition days. Perhaps he will clarify that.
At all events, after due consideration, it seems right to start with five days rather than three for debating the Estimates, and I hope that the House will so decide.
Amendment (b) relates to whether the vote should be taken at the end of the day. I doubt whether this will prove to be a problem in practice, as I suspect that it will be possible to arrange for the particular Estimates on which voting is to take place to be taken towards the end of the day in any case. In any event, the principle of divorcing the debate from the taking of the vote is unsatisfactory inasmuch as those voting ought to be persuaded, and perhaps in this instance more than usually will be persuaded, by the arguments adduced as to whether an Estimate should be reduced.
Amendment (c) deals with the method of selecting the debate. It was not the Committee's view that there should be yet another Select Committee. The impression is given that another parliamentry quango is to be established. We envisaged a much simpler ad hoc group. Our suggestion seems to me even now preferable to the idea that the matter should be handled by the Liaison Committee. Members of the Liaison Committee may feel that it is time to give someone else a turn when the Estimates to be debated are those of a single Department. Alternatively, the Liaison Committee might feel obliged to set up a Sub-Committee. This would create a similar structure to that suggested in the amendment, but without the advantages.
The report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) spells out what we have in mind. It states:
Select Committees would be represented by perhaps two or three members of the Liaison Committee nominated by that Committee. There should also be other back bench Members. The two front benches would also need to be represented, perhaps by a Treasury Minister and by an official Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters.

Mr. John Silkin: This is an important matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking in terms of two or possibly three members of the Liaison Committee serving on the Estimates Committee, why is that so different in terms of quality from a situation in which the Liaison Committee decides?

Mr. Higgins: We have suggested that two Members should be nominated from the Liaison Committee. That would overcome the argument about taking matters in turn. We recommended, for example, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, together with some other Back-Bench Members. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the Select Committee report that we spell out in some detail what we have in mind. It would also be helpful to have a Treasury Minister and an Opposition Front Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs represented, who will clearly have views to express.
We also put forward a specific recommendation on the Chairmanship. On all these grounds, it seems to me that the basis that we have suggested should commend itself to the Government and also to hon. Members. I cannot see the substance of the counter-arguments. They remain a mystery. The points put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House do not seem wholly convincing. I hope therefore that the House will support the amendment.
The motions tabled by my right hon. Friend are important. They have generated some controversy, not least in relation to the point about the third party insurance, if I may so term it, and the issue of Private Members' time. It was the intention of the Select Committee on Procedure that Private Members' time should not be jeopardised. Those who have studied the evidence taken by the Select Committee and the findings contained in our report will realise there is a strong argument against the system which has been described as an abuse of the Adjournment debates procedure. I should have thought that the amendment relating to three hours, accepted by my right hon. Friend, was a reasonable compromise.
The success of the arrangement will depend on the wishes of the House. There will still be the chance for hon. Members to debate political matters on Opposition days. One problem of the new Select Committees is that, all too often, there is no opportunity to debate their reports. Not infrequently, the reports are closely related to the financing of projects. The time proposed for discussing Estimates will provide an opportunity for such debates. I believe that we are taking an important step towards improving our procedures. I welcome my right hon. Friend's motions, although I believe that they can be somewhat improved. I hope to do that during the course of the evening.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Leader of the House, in a surprising and perhaps significant phrase, referred to this Parliament being in its declining days. A time that he suggested was inappropriate for major reforms.

Mr. Biffen: The words I used were "declining phase". That is somewhat different to "days".

Mr. Beith: That is a distinction with little difference. They led me to be surprised at the possibility that he should pour cold water on the idea of Parliament achieving major reforms. Not least because we are discussing this evening a major reform of our procedures designed to give greater effectiveness to the work of our Select Committees. Something new to our Standing Orders has been caught up, and that is an attempt to define what we used to call Supply time, part of which would now be called Opposition time. The use of such time has never been defined in our Standing Orders. It has been a matter of convention.
Now that it is defined, all those who make use of the time—in which I include third and fourth parties—have a legitimate claim to have their interests considered. The Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is Chairman, considered the position of minority parties at some length. That is of interest to us. The Committee suggested in paragraph 98:
It would be possible to devise a mathematical formula for the allocation of Opposition time rather on the lines of that used by the Committee of Selection in appointing Members to Committees.

I was surprised to hear that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) was not proposing to overturn the longstanding arrangements under which the Committee of Selection operates, because he seemed so ready to condemn the lack of representation of minority parties. The Committee argued this proposal in some detail and then did not support it, without any following argument. One does not have to look far to find the reason for that. It emerged in a vote, the result of which can be seen in the appropriate volume. Even in that vote two hon. Members on the Government Benches were distinguished by their support for the principle that minority parties should have proportional representation in the time that is given to them. The hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) voted with us on that issue.
The Committee, having rejected a mathematical formula, said that the decision on the Opposition days:
Should remain with the official Opposition, subject to any arrangements it chooses to make with the smaller parties.
Even in its rejection of that proposal the Committee recognised that we had some involvement in the process and had traditionally been given a part in it.
It amazed me that after we had debated the Committee's report and the Government had said that they wanted to listen to our views, so little notice was taken. The Government went on to table a motion that excludes outright the possibility that any party, other than the Labour Party, shall ever choose a subject to debate in Opposition time. Those are the terms of the motion that the Government have tabled. The basis on which they have done that is a take-note debate in which almost every Member who spoke expressed the view that further consideration should be given to the time allocated to minority parties.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that the matter should be reconsidered. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has already intervened, said that he disagreed with the Committee's decision and felt that there should be a proportional basis for allocating minority time. He pointed out that he had no vested interest, because the Alliance parties were pursuing him in Chelmsford, and he was speaking entirely objectively. We pay tribute to his objectivity.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred to another possible formula by which fair treatment could be given. Even the right hon. Member for Openshaw in that debate said that we should have to reexamine the allocation of parliamentary time. Despite all that, the Government came to a decision which is more restrictive than that which the Committee recommended. They put forward a motion that the subjects for debate on Opposition days shall be:
Matters selected by … Her Majesty's Opposition
and only those matters:
shall have precedence over government business
on such a day.
Let us suppose that past practice was honourably repeated and the present official Opposition allocated time to the Liberal Party to choose a subject for a Supply Day and we chose the urgent need for electoral reform. If the motion were passed, that subject would have to be chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, who has still not been converted on that essential issue.

Mr. Cyril Smith: In this Parliament is there not a record of the official Opposition refusing us the right to a debate on Trident and defence because it would have embarrassed them to debate the issues at the time?

Mr. Beith: I put it no stronger than this. There always seems to be an incentive for the Leader of the Opposition and those who act on his behalf in such matters to find days which for a variety of reasons are largely useless to them to allocate at the latest possible moment in discharge of their obligations to minority parties. There is an extraordinary tendency for World Cups, by-elections and so on to take place on the rare days allocated to the Liberal Party by the present arrangements. But even those arrangements are called into question by the Government's motion.
When I drew the matter to the attention of both Front Benches the Labour Party at least rushed to protect its own interests in the fear that it might be accused of having chosen some Liberal Supply day subject by tabling an amendment designed to change the unsatisfactory wording of the Government motion. The Government are willing to accept amendment (g). But from the way that the original motion was tabled it is clear that the Government's intention was not to be neutral about the present arrangements but to ensure the new Standing Order in no way reflected even the existing practice of occasional concessions to minority parties on Supply days. I cannot understand how the Government reached that position from a debate in which, as I said, almost every hon. Member who took part said that we had a point which to some degree should be met.
If amendment (g) were carried we would still be in a hopelessly unsatisfactory position. It is significant that, as the right hon. Member for Openshaw began to give an assurance in the declining phase of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) sought to intervene, but the right hon. Member for Openshaw was unwilling to give way and have the details of his assurance tested. His assurance was that existing arrangements for consultation with the Liberal Party would be continued. There was no reference to whether the existing practice of giving Supply days would be continued, and still less an indication that the Labour Party would be prepared to accept the broad principle that parties should have access to the time of the House in a reasonable proportion to the degree in which they are represented in the House and supported in the country.
It is a strange argument to use against my right hon. and hon. Friends in the SDP for the Labour Party Front Bench to say that because a number of people have left the Labour Party its obligation to make time available to other parties should be reduced. I do not see the logic. Indeed, on that basis the Labour Party should invite more people to leave in the hope that even more of its obligations will be cast aside and it will have even less reason to give time to Opposition parties. It is not a tenable proposition that as the Labour Party ebbs away, its command of Opposition time in the House should become absolutely total.
No one outside the House would regard it as reasonable that minority parties that are significantly represented in the House should not, have a share of Opposition time. When one adds together all the Members of minority parties, there is a reasonable claim to as much as four out of 19 days. In previous Parliaments, minority parties,

given a reasonable amount of time, have shared it on a mutually satisfactory basis, even when we have disagreed fundamentally on the subjects chosen. Agreements have been reached among ourselves, the Ulster Unionists and the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties in previous Parliaments; a total allocation of time was subdivided on a mutually agreed basis without complaint from any quarter.
The issue is one of basic fairness and justice. Unless hon. Members are prepared to say to people outside the House that they are willing to ensure that the views of electors can be fairly represented they play into the hands of parties such as mine which will rightly say that the House is run by people who do not give fair consideration. Hon. Members on both sides care about procedures. I ask them to support amendment (i) to ensure that minorities can be heard on a proper basis.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: This is an important debate, although it is taking place at a late hour. The high attendance at this hour shows the importance that hon. Members attach to our procedures.
As a subject, procedure has little sex appeal and even less media appeal, but it is important because only through procedure can the House of Commons exercise its historic role, not of governing but of checking the Executive and calling the Government to account.
One of the most undesirable developments of the past 50 years has been the atrophy of our procedures—as the power of the Executive has grown so our procedures have become inadequate. I welcome tonight's debate as a further instalment of important reform. It is not the end, but it is another important chapter. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has tabled the motions. I stress that it is only an instalment. Equally important is the reappointment of the Committee to consider Supply procedures. I am delighted that that has been done and we look forward to its recommendations.
The path of reform is long and thorny. Reference has been made to the number of Leaders of the House in this Parliament. I should like to think that they were worn out by their efforts in procedural reform and had to be replaced, but I am afraid that that is an over-optimistic and an inadequate assessment of the reasons for the changes.
In one sense we are witnessing a relay race. As one Leader of the House has laid down the torch, another has come forward to take it up. That is evidence of the desire of the House for reform. The Leader of the House must be responsive to the opinion of the House as a whole. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in welcoming the forthright statement by the Leader of the House tonight that we are not contemplating an experiment. That is important and I welcome it.
I turn to the question of the number of days. The Leader of the House made it clear that the principle is accepted of passing to Estimate days. If one puts forward too few days for that procedure, it ceases to be a technicality and becomes a principle. If that cannot be done adequately in the time, the principle of the control of Supply is involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said that he did not in his report put forward eight days as an opening bid. He said that it was an irreducible minimum that he and his colleagues thought desirable.
Perhaps it would have been better if the Committee had been less honest and had put forward an opening bid, say,


of 16 days, and then the end might have been more satisfactory. But I think that three days is too few. In the debate on 15 February, I said that I hoped that this was not the final word. There has been reconsideration, and the number remains unchanged. I believe that five days would have been much more reasonable and, like my right hon. Friend, I should be prepared to settle for that.
As for the argument of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if these days were allotted the time would have to come out of the time allotted for legislation, so be it. We have too much legislation in the House and, if these procedures resulted in less time for legislation, it would be a beneficial side-effect of these reforms.
Next, I address myself to the subject of the new Business Committee. I do not regard it as a matter of great principle whether this advisory role is exercised by the Liaison Committee or the new Business Committee. I found that the Liaison Committee did its job extremely well in the tasks which were allotted to it. It is a Committee which is capable of growth and extension, and I should be quite happy to see it exercising this role. I have every confidence that it would do it with fairness.
The motion relating to periodic adjournments refers to the recess debate. It seems to be a continual ambition of Governments either to abolish the recess debate or to curtail it in such a way that it is not effective. The House has made its view plain. When I was Leader of the House, I tabled a motion to abolish this proceeding altogether, because that was one of the recommendations put forward by the previous Procedure Committee. The House rejected it decisively.
To reduce the length of the recess debate to one and a half hours would be quite wrong. It would be inadequate for hon. Members to raise the matters that they wished to air and, just as important, for the Leader of the House to give the replies to which hon. Members are entitled. The tradition was established by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), and I attempted to follow it, of giving full replies to the points raised by hon. Members and not treating the debate as a formality. Therefore, I think that the concession made already by the Leader of the House accepting three hours is a step in the right direction, but I am not even happy about that.
As for the argument that some hon. Members take advantage of the recess debate to raise matters which they would otherwise raise on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill because it enables them to get in earlier in the debate than otherwise, that is a form of parliamentary cheating. But it is not necessary to abolish or curtail the debate on the recess motion to avoid that. All that is required is to have the recess debate and the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on different days.
Finally, I come to the Opposition parties. A lot of my time as Leader of the House was spent struggling with this problem. I do not think it is satisfactory to pretend that there is only an official Opposition in the House. It is not so. There are other parties. One may debate whether it is desirable to have such parties. One may discuss the wisdom of their decisions or the validity of their motives. But one cannot deny their existence, and it is not good enough that these parties should be dependent on the good will or the charity or the personal benevolence of the Leader of the Opposition for their rights. The principle is not how these parties arose—whether by secession or election is not the basic principle. The basic principle is that parties that are formed in the House of Commons have

a right to have their views represented and to represent their views because the House of Commons must represent the views of all formations within it if it is to be effective.
I do not think that the motion tabled by the Liberal Party is necessarily ideal, but it is better than the Government's proposal. Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to this matter? It is a question, not of concessions but of equity and fairness. That is the basic issue.

Mr. Michael English: There is no doubt that one must accept the fact that the Leader of the House has been forthcoming in an even more modest way than is his usual style. He has been forthcoming, but I am afraid that, in the typical style of all Leaders of the House and all Front Benchers on both sides of the House, he has been forthcoming by giving us the most modest steps that he felt were possible.
I say this as one who did not wholly support the original view of the Procedure Committee. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), whom I think we would all wish to congratulate on his chairmanship of the Committee, said that it was not an opening bid when he asked for eight days. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was, because I supported a lower figure than that in Committee, as I thought eight was too large a number.
As has been pointed out already, there is the technical difficulty that there are rather more than one set of Estimates. It is not just a question of many Main Estimates, but there are supplementaries, and things that are technically called excess votes. No Committee, whether it is the Liaison Committee or a Business Committee, will allocate a whole day to the first set of Supplementary Estimates that appears. It does not happen now, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the Leader of the House will agree. Whoever has the job of allocating Supply days at the moment is always reluctant to allocate the last ones, as he always wishes to keep some in hand so that the Government of the day owe the Opposition some days in case something crops up.
What will happen is that the Committee that has to dispose of these days will say that on supplementaries they will just have half a day, which leaves two and a half in hand, and then have another half day. That is why I am surprised by the Leader of the House turning down amendment (b). The precedent for amendment (b) is the late Dick Crossinan's splendid idea for defeating the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). My right hon. Friend was very keen on morning sittings, so Dick Crossman agreed, but he nullified them by the simple process of having votes on them in the afternoon. This worked splendidly and was the best way that a Leader of the House has ever defeated a Prime Minister and his Cabinet, but it is not a desirable precedent for current events.
The Committee that has to dispose of these things will say that it wants a half day on, for example, an aircraft carrier. The half day cannot end at 7 o'clock because the vote will have to be at 10 o'clock if it does. We will discuss agricultural subsidies after an aircraft carrier and then have the vote on the aircraft carrier—presumbly before, although there is no clarity in the resolution—then at 10 o'clock, you, Mr. Speaker, will have the appalling


job, immediately after a debate on agricultural subsidies, of putting a vote on an aircraft carrier, followed, no doubt, by a vote on agricultural subsidies. It is simply nonsense.
That will never happen. However these days are to be split, they will have to be split in that way because the motion does not say "at the end of the debate", be it 7 o' clock or ten o'clock; it says "at 10 o'clock". So a half Estimates day will have to be from 7 until 10 o'clock, otherwise the second half-day will have to be voted on after the first half-day at 10 o'clock. That cannot survive, and I am frankly surprised at both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman. Assuming that there is a reasonable understanding among all hon. Members to have votes at the normal times of the House of Commons, and not at stupid times, I cannot see why this suggestion of the Procedure Committee cannot be accepted.
The Procedure Committee report was not unanimous, as I said. There were many compromises in it. I personally deeply regret that, when it was revising the archaic term "Supply Day" and creating "Opposition Day"—which at least means that the public now know what the days are about and that they are determined by the Opposition, to which Opposition, I shall come in a moment, and not by the Government—the Committee, by a majority, would not accept a suggestion to revise the archaic term "Estimates". Most people outside this place think that they are estimates, and of course that is ludicrous. They are actually control limits.
If there is an estimate in a company's budget and there is a deviation downwards or upwards, the managing director might complain in either case, and he might well be right, because there might not be enough profit or there might be an increase in the firm's loss. In this case, the Estimates are rarely exceeded in total. I know of no recent occasion when that has happened. Individual Estimates may be exceeded, because the control limit has been exceeded. Cash limits have caused enormous underspendings on Estimates because people realise that the Government of the day are keen on controlling expenditure and have not spent their so-called Estimates. They are not real Estimates; they are control limits.
That means that Parliament, even under this new procedure, will consider only the most gross errors. The actual variances—as, I think, accountants call them—between what is really estimated in Departments, whether they be up or down, will never be considered by us. Only the most gross errors between a nominal Estimate, which is a control limit set by a Department in such a way as to be higher than the amount it expects to spend, will come before us as a supplementary so-called Estimate. I am sorry that that term was not changed, but it is a good thing that Opposition days are to replace Supply days.
I cannot say that any hon. Member will go to the stake on the difference between the Liaison Committee of some 23 people and a Business Committee, but I suspect that allocating the time of the House which at present is done by two or four people—the usual channels, the two Chief Whips, the Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader of the House—is probably not as easy to do when there are 23 people. I suspect that it will be left to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who is well trusted by Back Benchers on his side, because he is elected by them. This side of the House, of course, has no elected representative

of our Back Benchers—in Government or in Opposition—because of the construction of the two parties. The chairman of the Labour Party is elected by all Members, including Front Benchers.
I do not want to go into a constitutional argument about the composition of the Labour Party, but it differs from the Conservative Party, and I should have thought that that was fairly easy to prove. So while the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) might well be accepted by the whole House as exercising the powers of that body of about 23 people, one wonders whether one could say that of all his possible successors over the next decade, two decades, or longer.
Now I turn to the distinctly obscure question of how Opposition days shall be allocated.

Mr. David Steel: Why is it obscure?

Mr. English: It is obscure because the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party is in a much easier and plainer position than, for example, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who spoke earlier. It is obscure because there is undoubtedly a case for an allocation of time between the elected membership of parties in Opposition. If my calculations are correct, a party with one Member would be entitled to half of one of the 19 days every 16 years. A party with two Members would be entitled to one half day every eight years. That would mean, for example, that the Social Democrats should wait for a couple of Parliaments before asking for half a day. I accept that the Liberal Party is entitled to rather more days. The Liberals and Social Democrats must solve this matter between themselves. Some of their Members will argue "We believe in proportional representation."

Mr. Cyril Smith: Give us a chance.

Mr. English: I was chairman of the finance committee of a local authority upon which the hon. Gentleman sat as chairman of another committee. I have given him many chances, but he has not always taken them.
I am aware that the answer of some hon. Members is proportional representation. If we had that, things would be different, but we are dealing with the constitutional structure as it exists. It is entirely within the right of every hon. Member to suggest changes in that structure. We are in a minor way suggesting some changes in it now, but we are currently dealing with the position as it exists and not with the type of extraordinary position that exists in Ireland, where they elect people not by proportional representation but by the single transferable vote system. Rumour has it that hon. Members among the minority parties are advocating that here instead of proportional representation. We shall see what happens later in the week, but that is not the point.
I believe that elected Members of the House, whoever they are, have a right to be represented. I would defend the rights of all elected minorities in the House to have their due proportion of time. I should not support those like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who stand up to say, knowing that there has been a local election in their constituency which has defeated their party, that they have a right to an allocation of time for a party for which they never stood.
It is more important that we should deal with this issue as a whole. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of


the House and the Opposition Front Bench to reconsider some aspects of the Procedure Committee's motion. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say "The Opposition Front Bench has put forward an amendment; what a splendid thing; I am willing to accept it." Alas, that is what usually happens in the House.
We are trying in a small way, as the right hon. Member for Worthing said, to restore a measure of power to the Back Benches. We should say that it is wrong that the Government should automatically reject every resolution put forward by a Procedure Committee of Back Benchers in order merely to accept one put forward by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Because of the longstanding experience of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in these matters, the points he made will obviously repay study as the matters develop. In general, it appears that everyone who has so far spoken has agreed that we are embarking on a very significant reform that should be strongly supported. Accordingly, thanks are most certainly due not only to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and those who served on his Committee, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham. West, but also to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for carrying on the tradition of reform that has so far been established in this Parliament.
This is a reforming Parliament. There is a strong momentum in favour of reform and the need is to maintain it and to ensure that the work is finished. When the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing comes to make its report on the Sixth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and on the Armstrong report I hope that it will not be long delayed. I hope also that the House will give early attention to it. The objective that we all have and for which some of us have argued over a number of years, canvassed and worked for inside and outside the House, was well defined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has played a notable part in these matters.
There is no doubt that the power of the Executive has grown enormously in recent years. We have failed to modernise and adapt our institutions to bring the work of the Executive under better, more detailed and continuous surveillance. We now have the second instalment of proposals, which is an attempt to redress the balance between the people's representatives, the elected Members of Parliament, and the Executive. It is a balance which has swung vastly too far in favour of the latter.
The first instalment of proposals came with the establishment of the new departmentally related Select Committees. There is no doubt that the lack of opportunity for proper scrutiny of the Estimates in past years has been a disgrace to our democracy. There is a need to debate the Estimates and to vote upon them, and that is what is being proposed. It was said in the debate on 15 February, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing has referred, that the Estimates must be negotiable. I believe that they must be negotiable within the Select Committees. Important as the Committees are, the scrutiny of policy is of vastly greater practical significance if it is authoritative.

Back-Bench Members of Parliament seek to exercise their right and duty to examine the way in which money is spent and to propose changes.
The proposals that are before us are a first step. They are practical and it is immensely good that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed that they should be introduced in the 1982–83 Session. We shall look forward to their introduction.
There are two points of controversy in the amendments to the motion on the consideration of Estimates. The first involves the number of days that should be devoted to the new examination, of the Estimates. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and those members of the Procedure Committee who have appended their names to amendment (a), and I shall vote for it. It is better that there should be five days' examination rather than three. I was surprised when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that it was not possible to find the additional time. What has happened to the time that we used to spend debating the Finance Bill? It is odd that time seems to disappear invariably into the maw of the Government. However, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who is in his place, has set a remarkable example of introducing less legislation in this Session, and I hope that he will do the same in the next. He has placed before us much less legislation than many of his predecessors.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, it is up to Parliament and to Members of Parliament to decide how best we spend our time. I think that we spend our time much better scrutinising the Executive's action, especially on financial matters, than we ever do passing new legislation. Therefore, I support the proposal for five days.
Amendment (c) also stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. Five members of the Liaison Committee are present, and they will be able to confirm what I say. The Liaison Committee had the pleasure of hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing describe exactly what the Government's proposals were, his views and his Committee's views on them. Opinion was divided as to whether the Liaison Committee should take on that responsibility of choice or whether there should be a new Business Committee of sorts. Therefore, our discussion was not conclusive in that regard.
However, there was strong approval for the role of Select Committees in that regard. Therefore, perhaps I can offer a personal opinion. If it should be the decision of the House that the Liaison Committee should be asked to do this work, it would do it adequately and well. I have no doubt from my experience of the Committee that it could be well trusted to make dispassionate assessments.
On behalf of my colleagues who give up time to serve on that Committee, I resent the suggestion that they could only be prejudiced in favour of their own causes. That is not the way in which that Committee works. It has never been the way in which senior parliamentarians in the House have worked in time gone by.
As to the motion relating to periodic adjournments, or time for debates about recesses, I am against any form of curtailment of the rights of Back Benchers. I was surprised and disappointed that the limitation was proposed in the way in which it was. I approve of the suggestion that two amendments—one in the name of my hon. Friend the


Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and the other in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—should be accepted. I should prefer it if the time for those debates were open ended.
As to the motion about Opposition days, I note that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to accept amendment (g). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spent the whole of his speech talking about the rights of Opposition parties. The Leader of the Liberal Party was kind enough to give me a view on that subject some days ago. I say to his face that I have complete sympathy with his point. It is obvious that, with the best will in the world, the existing arrangement does not work well or fairly from the point of the view of the Liberals. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was right that at all times we must be sympathetic to the rights of minority groupings in the House, whatever forms the groupings take. If we vote on amendment (h), I shall vote in favour of it.
On the other hand, I heard with astonishment some of the statements that were made about parties, the rights of parties and those who change parties. I dare say that we should all like to pretend that we are elected on the basis of a purely personal vote and that, out of the 20,000 votes one receives, 19,999 are personal votes. The reverse is the truth. We are all elected as party men. That is the reality. There is no doubt that when people change parties or assimilate themselves with other groups, that cannot entitle them to the same rights that they had when they were elected under their original colours.

Mr. David Steel: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Does he recognise that the amendment that we proposed allows for some permanency? The Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) have talked about this matter not being an experiment. It is important that we find a form of words that will last from Parliament to Parliament. In our amendment there is no precise formula that allots the time among parties. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that one-fifth of Opposition Members are not members of the Labour Party. To suggest that one-fifth should have no rights is outrageous.

Mr. du Cann: I understand the right hon. Gentlenan's point very well. I am sure that with good will we can work these matters out satisfactorily. Those of us who take that view ought to apply such influence as we may have in that favour.
As I suggested earlier, this is instalment No. 2. It is right for the House to remind itself that we have much work to do on the reform of procedure—our only constitutional safeguard when we have no written constitution. We must ensure that we get further reform of procedure. We must reassert the historic role of the House to scrutinise expenditure. We must consider taxation and expenditure together. We must look at the form of the Estimates, which is so unsatisfactory. We must look at such matters as the timing of the Budget, the opportunity to involve more people in its drafting and so on.
I hope that we shall pass the motions not only in a spirit of self-congratulation—which would not be unreasonable—but also in the expectancy that they are still an hors d'oeuvre for more good red meat of reform to come.

Mr. John Roper: As a member of the Procedure Committee, I join those hon. Members who have expressed the gratitude of the House to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for guiding the Committee to the conclusions that we are now considering. Without his guidance then and, indeed, this year, we would not have made such progress.
There is considerable importance in the reforms that we are considering. This review of Supply procedure is long overdue. Our existing procedure, under which we consider substantial sums of public expenditure, is one of the most unsatisfactory of any democratically elected Parliament in the world. We have no satisfactory procedure for controlling, scrutinising and voting upon the enormous sums that are spent by the Executive each year. The procedure that we are moving towards in the motions is an important step on the road to getting an appropriate mechanism whereby the House of Commons can express its views on the substantial sums that are voted each year.
I believe that we should accept amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for Worthing to increase the number of days for consideration of Estimates from three to five. I am sorry that we are not able to go as far as the Select Committee suggested, but, if we can now establish five days, I hope that in the next Parliament it will be possible to increase the number of days to that suggested by the Select Committee.
The voting procedure proposed by the Government in their motion on the consideration of Estimates is extraordinary and is, I believe, alien to the House. They propose that we should have a series of debates and roll up the votes at the end of the day. Such a procedure is adopted in the European Parliament, but, although that institution does much good, I do not believe that our adoption of its procedure would have any merit at this stage.
I hope that the House will consider the matter carefully before it rejects amendment (b) and moves to the rather strange procedure which, for many reasons, including those outlined by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), would be most unsatisfactory.
The House should follow the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Worthing about whether the Liaison Committee—a rather large and unwieldy Committee—should consider the motions to be debated on Estimates or whether it should be the rather more limited Estimates Business Committee put forward in amendment (c). The Committee considered that matter carefully and felt that the smaller committee, which would include representatives of the official Opposition, Front Bench spokesmen and someone from the Treasury, together with four Back-Bench Members, would be much more likely to be efficient and effective.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) outlined the arguments for amendments (g) and (i). However, no one has yet mentioned amendment (j). Motion 9 as it is drafted suffers from the same technical defect as motion 8. Therefore, the amendment that the official Opposition tabled to motion 8 will also be needed for motion 9. I hope that the official Opposition and the Government will support amendment (j).
Amendment (i) is perhaps the most controversial amendment, about which we have had some conflict this evening. If the House is to have a fair allocation of


Opposition time, it is important that the relative strength of Opposition parties should be taken into account when considering the allocation of the 19 days.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that the House operates de jure on Standing Orders but that underneath there is an area of custom and practice about which hon. Members agree? If such a proposal as his were incorporated into Standing Orders, would it not be an innovation because it would bring the concept of parties into Standing Orders, however important they may be in other respects in the House? Would it not be better to leave the matter as custom and practice?

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. Tonight we are innovating in various ways. There has never been a reference to the official Opposition and its Leader in the Standing Orders, so we are innovating there. As we are taking into account for the first time the existence of a Leader of the official Opposition, it is appropriate also to incorporate the fact that there are other Opposition parties.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recollect that in so far as we take official account of the "Opposition" or the "Oppositions", it is more the "Oppositions", because, with regard to Opposition party money, we explicitly take account of the fact that there are several Opposition parties?

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That motion of the House ranks similarly to the Standing Orders that we are now considering.

Mr. Rooker: Herein lies the red herring that we have seen during the entire debate on this matter. The allocation of Opposition money depends not only upon representation in the House but upon votes cast at a general election. There is no similarity between the two, and one cannot argue that just because we are doing it tonight it is similar to the existing Standing Orders. It is nowhere near the same thing. If the hon. Member is seriously making that point, his party's and the Liberal Party's argument goes out of the window because they obtained no more than two seats at election time.

Mr. Roper: The strength in the country and the strength in the House can be measured in many ways. The House has always recognised hon. Members' rights to follow their conscience if they believe that it is in the national interest to do so. My right hon. and hon. Friends who have changed party allegiance during the present Parliament are not ashamed of having done so. We believe that we are right to do so and are right to form a party in the House.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does my hon. Friend recollect that at the last general election the Labour Party did not poll more than one-quarter of the 56 per cent. of the vote that the Opposition parties polled?

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The Committee of Selection is enjoined under the Standing Orders to take the composition of the House into account. When it considers the official Opposition, it takes into account the number of hon. Members who now take the Labour Party Whip. It does not take account of the number who did so at the beginning of the Parliament. If that works for the Committee of Selection, it is perfectly

appropriate that the same should apply in the House and that opposition time should be allocated among all the opposition parties.

Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise for interrupting. The hon. Gentleman said that he was coining to a conclusion and I wished to take advantage of his being a member of the Procedure Committee. I genuinely seek information about how the Estimates days will work. The more I study the amendments the harder I find it to grasp what form they will take. If the Estimates Business Committee is established, it will be the determinant and will make suggestions to the House that will have to be taken without debate and are unamendable. If that is the case, Back Benchers would be deprived of the rights that they would like to amend or discuss the Estimates. Does the hon. Gentleman also understand that the Estimates Business Committee will determine what is debated, that its proposals will be unamendable and that the Committee will decide what procedure to follow on the debate on the estimate relating to a Department or a specific issue? Is it satisfactory that the Committee should work in that way?

Mr. Roper: The hon. Gentleman has taken me some way from the point at which I was concluding. Perhaps the Leader of the House will feel that it is more appropriate for him to reply to the hon. Gentleman's more general comment. As I understand it, it will be possible to debate a subject that has been proposed. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph (2) of the motion relating to consideration of estimates where it says that
consideration of estimates or reports of the Liaison Committee relating thereto shall stand as first business".
"Consideration" means debate so there will be opportunities to debate the matters that are proposed.
For the better regulation of our debates and to ensure that they are orderly, it is felt appropriate that there should be a committee, whether a Liaison or Estimates Business Committee, to prepare for that. That should be done, neither by the Government nor by the Opposition, but by a committee that represents the whole House. That is why the proposal has been made.
In conclusion, there are major matters of parliamentary imortance before us tonight—not only the question upon which I have just dealt but the far more important question of the way in which we consider important matters of public finance. I hope that the House will take note of what has been said by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and others and Will therefore be able to support amendments (a), (b), (c), (h), (i), and (j).

Sir Peter Emery: I join the SDP Whip in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee in which a long and somewhat tedious consideration was carried out in great detail. One praises his considerable ability in chairing with great charm a Committee which included a number of prima donnas and people with very strong views, and on obtaining such success in the recommendations that were made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing suggested that the recommendations represented a considerable "constitutional change". I think that that is a slight overestimate of the Committee's work, bit they


certainly represent a major procedural improvement, which will allow scrutiny of Government expenditure of Supply in a way that the House has not enjoyed for many years.
An important point that has not been brought out so far is that the recommendations will bring about scrutiny of individual Votes on the Floor of the House. The Committee did not consider it good enough that the Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates should be considered just by the new departmental Select Committees, but believed that recommendations of those Select Committees concerned with Estimates should be able to be debated on the Floor of the House.
It is therefore important that the recommendations in this report, which was brought before the House in July last year, should be dealt with before the autumn of this year. In this context, it should be noted that the Committee originally recommended a debate in the early part of the new Session, which would have been last autumn, with the necessary Standing Orders being made before Christmas if possible. We are therefore not moving with any great speed. What is important, however, is that we are moving with the full will of the whole House towards the improvements that have been proposed.
I wish to deal with three specific matters. With regard to the number of days on which the Estimates would be considered, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is under a misapprehension if he believes that the Estimates would not be debated. The whole concept is that recommendations made by the specific Departmental Select Committees should be considered by a body, whether it be the Liaison Committee or the new Committee suggested by the Select Committee. That body would select a number of the recommendations on the Estimates from the Select Committees which would then come before the House for debate.
The matters selected might be matters of policy and estimates. For instance, the Select Committee on Industry and Trade report on Concorde considered estimates and policies. That report issue might well have been selected. The recommendations of the Committee would then be a matter for debate. It would be left to the Liaison Committee to decide whether there should be a time limit on the debates. If debates ran for two or three hours, it would be possible to cover more than one subject in a day.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has been most helpful. I was endeavouring to understand what the motions mean. What my hon. Friend says may have been in the minds of the Procedure Committee, but it does not appear in the motions. It is not stated that the Estimates business committee should take any account of the recommendations of the Select Committees. I would have thought that the motions should lay down guidelines of that sort.

Sir Peter Emery: That question should perhaps be directed at the Leader of the House. I understood from my right hon. Friend's remarks that this was the manner in which he intended matters to proceed. It is my belief that this is how the motions would be carried out.
I turn to the issue of whether there should be three, five, eight or 14 days for debate. The original suggestion, put forward in a forcefully argued paper by the Clerk Assistant, which proved extremely useful and formed part of the framework of much of the Committee's

deliberations, was six days. The suggestions of former Leaders of the House varied from 14 days proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to three or four days proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Three days was the minimum number considered.
I urge my right hon. Friend to accept the Committee's proposal of five days. It would be unfortunate if the matter had to be taken to a vote. It is probably true that five days will not be sufficient. While accepting the introduction of a permanent procedure, it is right to experiment to establish the right number. To decide upon three days would not permit a proper experiment.
It remains to be decided whether the Estimates business committee or the Liaison Committee should consider the matter. This is not an issue of great importance. I cross swords to some extent with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). It could be invidious for the Liaison Committee to have to decide which of three or four issues should come forward on a specific day and for the Chairmen of Committees to have to take part in that process. Hon. Members try to be well rounded individuals who take wise and sensible decisions. But a Chairman has a vested interest in a Committee over which he presides. It seems to me that the proposal for an Estimates business committee is slightly to be favoured.
I did not support the views of the minority parties, in Committee but it is clear that considerable feeling is attached to the proposal contained in amendment (i). If we are deciding on a new procedure in which we spell out specifically the role of Her Majesty's Opposition, there is some sense in having that delineated so that account shall be taken of those parties who make up the Opposition. If it comes to a vote I shall be willing to support amendment (i).

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was right about the importance of the motions before us in changing the relationship between the Legislature and the Executive. It is important to debate the priorities of public expenditure. We must not assume, as has been assumed in most of the speeches, that the House has always been anxious to discuss the details of the Estimates.
As Chairman of the general Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, and as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I took part in those debates year after year, and I did so more recently as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. I used to taunt or even goad the Chairmen of the various Estimates Committees or Expenditure Committees, or even the departmentally related Committees, to look at the Estimates, because most of the Committees did not look at the Estimates or even produce a nil return. It was within their power to do that every year, but they failed to do so.
I believe that the control of expenditure, not only by the House but by the Government, is unsatisfactory. It is interesting to note that even today, with the level of sophistication available, the best method that the Prime Minister has to reduce the expenditure of a Department is to appoint a weak Minister. The House has not interested itself in the Estimates adequately. It has taken steps in a general forward direction, but they have been hesitant and unsure.
We had the old Estimates Committee, which interested itself with big reports rather than with the examination of the Estimates. Thanks to John Mackintosh we had the Procedure Committee, which made its splendid report, and the Expenditure Committee, on whose general Sub-Committee I was privileged to serve as Chairman, did a useful piece of work, but the other Sub-Committees produced reports on the big subjects that interested them most. They did not look at the details of the Estimates in the way in which they needed to be looked at.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: The old Estimates Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve in a previous capacity, not only set up the London Airports Authority but made a report on Concorde that was ignored by the Government of the day and has proved to be true. That Committee, which was chaired by the now Lord Carr, did the most remarkable work, although it was ignored by the House. Will the hon. Gentleman look back at the record of that Committee and recognise that it was a very important and distinguished Committee? It was a tragedy that its importance was not recognised and that it was subsequently abandoned.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is making my point. They were big reports, some of which were very valuable. Those on the Civil Service and Concorde were excellent reports, but they did not consider the details of the Estimates. That is the point that I make. They did not study the details and decide in which way the balance of resources should be spent.
As I said, year after year I goaded Chairmen to get the Sub-Committees that looked after departmental expenditure to reach a view on the way in which the money was being spent. But the outside pressure groups, which were expanding and becoming more vocal, did not make use of the Sub-Committees. I was always surprised that they did not give them attention. They did not do the work which I expected and which would have shown results in the Sub-Committees.

Mr. Hooley: They had no means of forcing a vote on the Floor of the House on a specific expenditure item. All that the House could do was to nod through £50 billion for Civil Estimates. That was it. The proposal is to remedy that.

Mr. Sheldon: So inadequate were the arrangements that they did not have the hoped-for effect. It was incomprehensible to me that people did not bring pressure to bear.
My hon. Friend rightly suggests that the proposal will more closely define the relationship between examination and decision. I hope that that will produce the right result.
The right hon. Member for Worthing said that the proposal was not experimental. But we cannot be sure that we have it completely right. We are homing in on the type of decision that we want the House to take.
I am wholly in agreement with amendment (a), for the simple reason that, if five days proves wrong, we shall revert to three, but it is unlikely that the length would be increased from three to five days. If there is lack of interest, the Government will automatically reduce the period to three days.
Amendment (b) involves the relationship between voting and debate. My objection is not only constitutional. We know what will happen. We saw it under the Dick

Crossman arrangements. People will vote without having heard the debate. At least a body of people voice their annoyance or even anger in the debates about people voting contrary to the debate. But if the vote is separated from the debate people may vote according to preconceived ideas and not as a result of the arguments.

Mr. Rooker: The need to keep the vote and the debate together is greater if there is trouble on the Government Back Benches. Once an hon. Member has made his speech and intends to vote against his Government it is best to get it over with. If there is a time gap, enormous and unfair pressure will be brought to bear. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that that point is valid.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is fully aware of the wicked ways of the world. I wholly agree with him. We had an example of what he says in a vote last week.
Amendment (c) deals with whether we have a Business or Liaison Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing that the Liaison Committee is so likely to be a logrolling Committee that it would take turns and spread the business out. I have a great respect for the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. I do not deny the important role that he plays or the way in which he comes to decisions. Nevertheless, when there are a number of people with particular subjects for debate, there will be a strong tendency to say "I chose last year; this year it should be you", instead of examining the merits of the topics and deciding which should be brought out because of their importance.
As to the motion dealing with periodic adjournments, I do not see the reed to limit time, whether it is to three hours or one and a half hours. The problem has not arisen. Sometimes, if the Government believe that a debate is continuing for too long, they move the Closure. The Speaker or his Deputy decides whether to accept it, according to the importance or vigour of the debate. A safeguard for the Government is the limited time for debate, with participants from both sides, irrespective of anger or inclination to speak. The motion is unnecessary.
The motions are important. They take control further to the House of Commons itself. They are not the last word, but they represent an important development.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who chaired our Committee. Those who served on it appreciated the way in which he led our deliberations so that we achieved a result. At one time he was a little worried about the number of Leaders of the House involved. They changed so rapidly that we could have had a Committee comprising ex-Leaders of the House. The Liaison Committee should be able to handle the situation.
I go along with what the Committee suggested, but I believe that we are in danger of having too many Committees. The Liaison Committee does not have that much to do. It is useful at some meetings to have the cut and thrust of debate about which subjects should be debated on Estimate days. That sharpens the Committee Chairmen so that they think about their own Committees discussing Estimates.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was correct to say that we had failed to take past


opportunities. The fact that the report will lay responsibilities on the Committees will lead them to concern themselves with Estimates within their Departments—something that they have not yet done. We shall have to wait and see, but I believe that that is likely to happen.
I think that the Leader of the House should concede five days. It is easier to go back than to go forward. If there are insufficient subjects to provide debates to fill the five days, the House will not wish to take up the whole of the time.
This report is a step towards letting the electorate see that in this Chamber we can get at the Executive on its expenditure. I hope that the House will take that opportunity when it gets it next Session.
In view of the fact that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is important that the House should know that we care about the House discussing expenditure, I am surprised that we should be having this debate at this late hour. We should have had the debate earlier in the evening. We know that all the newspapers have long since been on the road to delivery. The BBC and the other radio media are not interested in what is going on at this hour of the morning. If we wanted to convince the electorate that we meant business, we should have kicked off by letting people have full coverage of the debate. Be that as it may, I shall not prolong the proceedings and add to the time during which the House will debate this matter.
There are several amendments affecting the position of the Opposition parties. I could not support amendment (i) because its last sentence reads:
and having regard to the number of seats each party holds in the House.
I honestly do not believe that a party which is created in the middle of a Parliament can pray in aid that it has support in the country and therefore can justify being considered an Opposition party when the majority of its members have split away from the main Opposition party. At the moment, the SDP has two right hon. Members who were actually elected. I do not want to rub that in, but this reform is not a temporary measure. It will be in Standing Orders. It is not limited to this Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the House as a whole will recognise the fact that either amendment (h) or amendment (j) is reasonable. There should be consultation with all those parties which are in the House as Opposition parties. A number of hon. Members are sent here as Opposition Members, and it is right that we include a provision in our Standing Orders for them to be consulted.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, especially in view of his experience on the Committee of Selection in dealing with the arrangements for minority parties. I remind him that amendment (i) only requires the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to have regard to the sizes of the Opposition parties and not to accept a specific formula. The amendment which the hon. Gentleman supported in the Committee was very similar in its phrasing and said that the allocation should be made after discussion between the official Opposition and other Opposition parties, which should take account of the relative sizes of the parties. On any assessment, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the two are almost identical.

Mr. Lewis: I believe that there should be discussions. Both amendments (h) and (i) presuppose that there must be discussions between the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties. It is reasonable that that should be so, and, as we know that it is so in practice, there is no reason why we should not put it into our Standing Orders. The report is a step in the right direction and I hope that, with slight variation, the House will support it.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I hope that my hon. Friends realise that we are tonight considering increasing the opportunities for the House to reduce the Estimates for expenditure proposed by the Government. It is not a two-way option that the House is being offered. It is the opportunity to cut what some of us feel are inadequate proposals for public expenditure being made by the Government.
The underlying assumption in the financial procedures of the House is that we have an extravagent, rash and warlike Monarch, wishing to pursue her military exploits and being restrained by her peaceable, monied and tax-paying subjects. There may still be an element of truth in that, but there is at least as much truth in the concept of Governments as being establishment minded, seeking to deny the people represented by Back Bench Members of Parliament their basic social rights.
Therefore, I should wish the Procedure Committee to go on to consider amendments to increase Estimates and defer a final decision on that, with present practice merely a transitory phase. I hope that it and its successors will be encouraged in this view by its observation that the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and Japan allow their legislatures to increase Estimates, and none of those countries has an unsuccessful economy.
The availability of the Estimates days, I hope, will encourage Select Committees positively to examine their Estimates and table amendments, even if, as at present, those amendments do not automatically command priority in selection. It is inconceiveable that if a Select Committee were to propose an amendment to an Estimate that amendment would not be selected.
To be effective, the votes in the House will have to be matched by changes in the structure of the Votes. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) was in a sense right to say that the old Estimate Committees did important work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), though, was right to say that they did not stick to the Estimates, because there was no single Vote that covered Concorde expenditure. There were constant scandals about the odd £100 million that was tucked away here and there in Votes, which were being put towards Concorde on the sly by Ministry of Aviation officials who were trying to under-represent the resources committed to Concorde.
This question arose in the Treasury Select Committee this year. In our consideration of the Armstrong report, I asked the deputy secretary in the Ministry of Defence for budget and finance, Mr. Bryars, about coverage of the Trident programme in the Defence Estimates, to allow Members to vote for increased expenditure on the surface fleet but the elimination of Trident. Mr. Bryars told us that within the Department, decisions on resources allocation were taken on a different basis, which takes account of expenditure relevant to a particular project on whichever vote it will eventually fall. In other words, the Votes do


not do a thing in regard to the way that particular programmes go and the way that particular decisions are taken in Departments.
Procedures will have to be further considered not only in respect of the subject coverage of the Vote but in relation to the time phasing of decisions in Government and in the House. Mention has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that Estimates are not a proper description of what we do in the House when we approve expenditure on particular Votes. The idea that they are a controlled total is not right—they are more in the nature of an appropriation.
The real Estimates come in the public expenditure White Paper, which is now published at the time of the Budget, but which, if the Treasury Committee's report is adopted, will be published in outline in November and in detail early in the new year. Those should really be described as the Estimates, and the Votes on the public expenditure White Paper should have mandatory effect in the detailed drafting of what we now call the Estimates put before the House later in the financial year, but which should perhaps be more properly described as appropriations.
The Select Committee on Procedure considered whether we should do away with the two-tier procedure of having not only the Estimates but the Consolidated Fund and Appropriations Account. It decided to leave the matter for another day. When it returns to the matter, I hope that it will retain the two-stage procedure, but make them both effective, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr St. John-Stevas) proposed, although the way that he proposed was perhaps not appropriate.
Finally, I want to comment on a point of detail in connection with the three or five days. The proposal put forward by the Leader of the House for three days would impose a gross disproportion between the consideration of the Estimates and the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates. I see why the Chief Secretary, in his evidence to the Procedure Committee, was enthusiastic about the consideration of Supplementary Estimates, because they are the means by which the Treasury exerts control and dicipline in the enforcement of decisions to which it is a party. However, the Estimates are the decisions which set the broad policy and framework of the commitment of resources, and they are far and away the more important decisions for the House to consider. The way that this House at present gives a disproportionate amount of time to Supplementary Estimates is like Professor Parkinson's committee, which passed the decision to approve a nuclear reactor on the nod and then spent the afternoon happily discussing the bicycle shed.
This is a step on the way. I am uncertain about whether a succession of steps like this will be adequate to reform properly the financial procedures of the House, and I hope—if not in this Parliament, at any rate in the next—that the reform of our financial procedures will be looked at sufficiently thoroughly to produce a coherent and sensible fully worked out structure which is matched properly with the role of a modern Parliament.

Mr. Roger Moate: I hesitate to introduce a dissenting voice into the debate. It appears that every other hon. Member has welcomed the proposals in the belief that somehow they will change the relationship

between the Executive and the Legislature. If people believe that, they are under a considerable illusion. I do not say that I do not admire the work that is done by the Committee, but I have to say that it was chasing illusions if it believed that procedural changes would result in greater power or influence being exerted over the Executive. I do not believe that that will happen, given the nature of our Parliament. Indeed, if it were to happen, I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be introducing the motions this evening.
Our prime duty as members of parties—and there has been much talk about party—is to ensure that the policy of one's party is carried out, and procedural changes, whether through Select Committees or debates on Estimates, will not be allowed to undermine the strategy of the Government or of the party in government at the time. That is why I am sceptical about the whole structure of Select Committees. If they start to exercise the influence that we are discussing tonight, even through this Liaison Committee, the force of party would soon exert itself through those Select Committees to ensure that the Government's policy was not endangered. That general philosophy would be supported by virtually all hon. Members in the Chamber no matter how much on occasions such as this they might express themselves philosophically in favour of the independence of the individual Back Bencher and of the Back Benchers' control over Parliament.
I had hoped to ask by means of interventions some of the genuine questions to which I wanted answers but that was not to be so. The more I have listened to the debate and the more I have read the motions, the more puzzled I have become about the way in which this system is supposed to work. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) would explain for my benefit and perhaps for the benefit of those who have not served on the Procedure Committee exactly how the system will operate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If my hon. Friend believes that the system will not work anyway, why does it matter if he does not find out how it works? How has he made up his mind that it will not work if he does not know how it will work?

Mr. Moate: Even at this late hour my hon. Friend is still sharp. While I am allowed to express a general scepticism I would still be genuinely interested to know how we are to spend three, five or even more days of our parliamentary time. If we are to have debates of some form or another on the Estimates, I should like to know what are to be my rights as a Back Bencher on those occasions.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who was also a Member of the Committee, how he saw the debates taking shape. He gave the answer—other hon. Members have expressed the same view—that this would be an opportunity for debating reports of the Select Committees. It was not my understanding that that was to be the purpose of the Estimates days. I thought the idea was that the House of Commons as a whole would exercise control, or try to, over money voted for the Government to spend. Yet it seems that several members of the Committee have the idea that these three days or five days will be used to debate a number of Select Committee reports that otherwise would not be debated.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What the Procedure Committee had in mind was that these reports, out of the morass of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, should, for the benefit of the House, focus a searchlight on certain aspects—for instance, some innocent looking expenditure such as the Concorde project, which will generate annual expenditure for many years to come—and that it would be of assistance to the House to have that homework done for it so that it could then debate a fairly tight focus which had been drawn to its attention before it was too late for effective action to be taken.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have examined the Select Committee report and I can see expressed there many of the general wishes and intentions of the Committee. I find it difficult to try to relate that report and those general intentions to the motions on the Order Paper. Nowhere on the Order Paper are Select Committees referred to. There is a reference to the Liaison Committee or some other Committee that could be formed, but nowhere is there a reference to the Select Committees, and nowhere is it being laid down in Standing Orders—we are laying down Standing Orders that could apply for many years to come—that that Committee must restrict itself to Select Committee reports or even take account of Select Committee reports. It can refer to a general departmental Estimate, and we might have a motion on that. It is most unsatisfactory that we should have the motions presented in this form. The members of the Committee should consider it unsatisfactory because, while they might have had clear intentions, those intentions might not be reflected by the Leader of the House at the time. The more that we have such loose phraseology the more we play into the hands of the Government of the day to express and frame imprecise motions in whatever form they so wish.
What hon. Members have been saying is not necessarily reflected in the motions. I might have it wrong and I should be glad to have that clarified. For example, there is the question of whether the proposals that come forward from the Liaison Committee are amendable or debatable. I am not a member of such a Committee. Are Back Benchers to accept that the Liaison Committee will make a recommendation to the House and that it will have to be voted on immediately? It is my understanding that the motion will have to be put forthwith and will be unamendable. If we are to have three days of debate on a variety of subjects, I should much rather be able to blame the Government because they have not chosen something that I wanted to be debated than blame my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I read the report of the Select Committee with care and I noted that it referred to the selection of amendments being left to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Clearly the Committee thought that motions would be amendable. It is important that they should be. If the debates are to have any value or meaning, we should sometimes be able to put what might appear to be minor but specific matters to the Government and to have the House vote upon them. That is important because on those matters we might be able to influence policy. The motion that is before us is to be put forthwith and the recommendations will have effect as if they are orders of the House. That seems to be contrary to the Select Committee's report and I shall welcome comment from my right hon. Friend on that issue.
I should like to know the form that the motions will take. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) said that there will be an opportunity only to effect reductions in the Estimates. Several other hon. Members have said that generally they would expect that type of recommendation to come forward—for example, that there should be a reduction in a certain Estimate. Will that be a specific Estimate or a specific item in a Department's Estimate, or will it be an across-the-board reduction, a motion that states, for example, that a DHSS or Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Estimate should be reduced?
It is important that we should have some idea of how the system will work. It is dependent upon the nature of the motions whether these Estimate days will have any value. For example, we may think that we are to exercise control over the DHSS. Is it likely that a motion that is put before the House seeking to reduce the budget of the DHSS will receive the support of Government Members? If it were expressed in such sweeping terms it would be seen as a vote of censure on the Department and would probably involve the resignation of the Minister. That would not be a very meaningful debate. If, on the other hand, we have a specific item put before us which is small enough to be of interest and significance and is not likely to embarrass the Government over much, individual hon. Members might be prepared to exercise their independence and to vote on it.
I do not like the idea that this important question of procedure is to be determined as we go along by whoever sits upon the Liaison Committee. The House should determine the shape and character that the debates will have. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to the specific questions that I have asked and will say how he thinks the Estimate days will work.
Having expressed that scepticism about the value of these days, I would rather waste only three days on them than five. I hope that we shall stick to three days and not five. I hope also that my right hon. Friend can clarify these matters for me.

Mr. John Golding: With Whips on both sides of the House pressurising me to be brief, I shall give way to the pressure, particularly as some of it comes from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison).
I was sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) by referring to the Liaison Committee in the way in which I did. He may have 22 senior impartial members, but he has one prejudiced, partial chairman. That is me. I speak as a chairman of a Select Committee that thinks that this arrangement will not be helpful to the Select Committee system.
I appreciate the vast sums of money in the departmental Estimates for employment. They total billions of pounds. However, I also see the number of sub-headings that are set out. It will take a considerable time for the Committee to examine those Estimates in any detail, yet if it does not study them in detail, it will not be doing its job properly.
The Select Committee on Employment decided specifically that it would more usefully spend its time looking at subjects other than finance, such as race relations, trade union law and, above all, unemployment. It is more important to devote time to those subjects than


to devote time to going through the sub-headings. There was a valid judgment by the Committee that we could spend our time more usefully.
We have a responsibility to look at finance. We appreciate that. However we have said that it is far more important to take the corporate plan of the Manpower Services Commission, for example, to look at the reports of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and of the Health and Safety Commission and at detailed proposals than to look at what to us are lists of often meaningless figures.
We believe that it is more important to identify problems in society, to see how Governments are tackling them and to see whether they are tackling them in a cost-effective way than to start with the financial provision. To us the problems are more important.
If we were to look at the problems, we would not look at them solely within departmental budgets but would want to compare the budget for the Department of Employment with the budget for the Ministry of Defence and the budget for the Department of Health and Social Security. That job needs doing. One of the problems of the present proposals is that increasingly we shall be looking within Departmental budgets and not at the distribution of money throughout Government.
Unfortunately, what seems to be developing is that a parliamentary time will be allocated to the Committees that conform to looking at the detailed Estimates rather than the problems. I regret that. Three days is too long. I would prefer the days to be devoted to looking at the considered reports of Select Committees that they regard as important. They might not be about the Estimates.
I have one question that I should like to ask on behalf of my Committee. I repeat that I am partial. If I vote for three or five days and my Committee persists in studying problems rather than figures and starts from the point of view of the needs of the citizen rather the need to control public expenditure, does that mean that there will be little or no parliamentary time in which to discuss its reports?
I am not convinced that Select Committees that deal with vast sums under a variety of sub-heads are competent to deal with the Estimates in the way that is suggested. That is why I am not confident that this system will work. Let those Select Committees that do not spend the bulk of their time looking at the detailed Estimates also have time to debate their reports.
The Liaison Committee consists of members who are capable of being impartial and of pushing their own interests aside. However, the reaction of hon. Members who do not serve on the Liaison Committee leads me to believe that they will suspect the judgment of that Committee. It would therefore be better if the Liaison Committee did not take responsibility for the allocation of time.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall be as brief as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have put us in a slight difficulty, because the Procedure Committee has completed only half of its inquiry. Tonight we are debating the fruit of the first part of its work. It is my sincere hope that the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham will be dealt with effectively in its second report, which I

cannot anticipate. The questions that he raised have been in the Committee's mind and the instruments that it will recommend for dealing with them are not yet forged.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to two functions of Select Committees—the control of finance and the study of policies and problems. In supporting the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, it has not been in my mind that we should thereby deprive the House of the opportunity of debating Select Committee reports that have more to do with problems than with expenditure.
For example, the Procedure Committee produced a report, which I should like to think is of some value, on Britain's import-export performance, and it followed up a previous report on means of preventing collisions and strandings between tankers and noxious cargo carriers in waters around the United Kingdom. That is also an important subject, which primarily does not have much to do with expenditure, although it has expenditure implications.
I therefore share the desire of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to see work of that type continued and for such reports to be debated by the House. That might possibly lead the Procedure Committee to the conclusion that instead of Select Committees being loaded with an additional burden of financial scrutiny, which, because of their fairly parsimonious staff, they are unable to undertake, there should be something akin to the Congressional budgetary committee system which will focus particularly on expenditure rather than on the general problems and policy questions to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. That is one possible line that might recommend itself to the Select Committee.
It has not been my experience that the bigger the Committee the better it works. To imagine that the Liaison Committee with 22 members is the ideal instrument to undertake the new functions conceived by the Procedure Committee is wrong. That is why the Procedure Committee recommended a new Committee of eight members set up by the Selection Committee to carry out that task. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that, in the Liaison Committee system, there tends to be a doctrine of "Buggins' turn next". It is improper to have three days in a Session allocated to examining expenditure allocations of one Department, because Buggins would be overdone and the other Bugginses would not have their fair crack of the whip. We should aim at a new Committee set up entirely for the task that is small enough to work well—eight will work well. That is why I shall support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
There was much argument in Committee about the number of days, and there is nothing magical about five. However, as with so many matters in the House, we must compromise within the spectrum of the possible. If we set our sights as low as three, there will be a temptation for whichever body is charged with allocating subjects to keep two in reserve. After all, how can one allocate all three days in the knowledge that there will be excess votes, but without knowing what the excess votes will be? Would the Committee not expose itself to criticism if it did that? Three might be a reasonable number if one could foresee for an entire Session the subjects on which the spotlight will fall, but one cannot foresee those before the Estimates


are published. The proposal for three days is not to deal with the substance of the problem, but to nod the head symbolically towards doing what the House wishes.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to accept five as a reasonable compromise between what many of us would wish—which is something more—and the constraint of time, which is one of the many albatrosses on his back. It would be churlish to sit down without thanking him for his careful consideration of the Select Committee's report and for his extremely constructive approach to much of it.

Mr. David Winnick: I want to refer to the motion on periodic Adjournments, but first I shall comment briefly on two other matters. As to Opposition time, one cannot be persuaded by the points put forward by the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party spokesmen about the SDP. If those who are now members of the SDP, having changed their party allegance, had put the matter to the electorate and if they were re-elected in their new colours, they would have a mandate from the electorate. The only hon. Member who changed his party in this Parliament and who put the matter to the electorate was not returned. The example of the former hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern considerably weakens the SDP argument.
On the second point, I should like to take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said. I am not convinced that we are debating a great proposal for reform. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) argued that the Select Committees were a great step forward. I am not so convinced. I was one of the 12 who voted against their establishment and I do not believe that I have been proven wrong. I say that even though I am a member of one. I do not deny that useful work is undertaken by them, but I see no evidence that the basic balance between the Back Bencher and the Executive has changed as a result of the setting up of the 12 subject Select Committees.
Nor do I believe that examining the Estimates in the proposed way will so change matters that Back Benchers will have more power. I am much more anxious about the difficulties in society than with the estimates as such. Of course they are important, but their detailed examination on the Floor of the House is not a pressing matter that cries out for reform in the way that has been suggested. I may be wrong, but I do not think so.
I shall now deal with the motion that relates to periodic adjournments. I oppose any limitation to the debate on the motion for the recess. I see no reason why it should be limited. The Leader of the House has accepted some advance, because he has now said that there should be three hours rather than one-and-a-half hours for that debate. Cynics may say that that was his original intention and that, having advanced by one-and-a-half hours, he considers that we should accept a compromise and that he has made a great concession.

Mr. Biffen: I make the point, half in self-defence, that it was not my idea. It was a Select Committee recommendation that I was happy to put before the House.

Mr. Winnick: I must accept that, although the Leader of the House took up the recommendation on behalf of the Government.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to an earlier debate in October 1979. It was then proposed that there should be no debate on the question as to the length and timing of the recess and that the matter should simply go through on the nod. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was then Shadow Leader of the House, said that he opposed such a proposal because
We all know that in such debates we raise issues which are of national and often great regional or local concern.
In the same debate, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford:
My right hon. Friend said that hon. Members would have adequate opportunity of raising matters if they applied for one of the end-of-Session Adjournment debates. However, they are limited in number and one has to take one's chance in Mr. Speaker's selection. Under the present procedure, any hon. Member who wishes to make a point has the chance to do so because the Government cannot proceed to put the Question until all those wishing to speak have done so.—[Official Report, 31 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1286.]
He made the point well.

Mr. Hooley: It is not true that all hon. Members who wish to speak in an Adjournment debate get an opportunity to do so. At a given time the Government will move the closure and it will be carried.

Mr. Winnick: All hon. Members who rise at the beginning of the debate usually manage to get into it. That has been my experience in the past few years.
Paragraph 87 of the Select Committee report states:
The length of debate on the motions for recess adjournments has grown steadily.
I asked the Library to give me some details about the length of those debates on the past five years. From Christmas 1977–78 until now there have been about four such debates per year. On only two occasions have the debates been longer than five hours, but not over six hours, one of them being the debate on the adjournment for the Summer Recess in 1980 when there were a number of important matters to be raised. Last year, the combined debate on the Royal Wedding and the Summer Recess motion lasted 2 hours 25 minutes and the last three such debates have lasted 3 hours 12 minutes 3 hours 59 minutes and 3 hours 28 minutes, so there is not much evidence of any lengthening of the debates over successive periods.
Matters of local, national and even international importance have been raised in such debates. If an hon. Member spends some time raising such a matter, a limit of three hours would not leave much time for others who wished to speak. On one such occasion, the now Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), spent half an hour or so on what was no doubt regarded as a fairly important matter about a religious sect. No one quarrelled with that, but if the debate is to be limited to three hours and an hon. Member takes that length of time there will not be much time for the rest.
Incidentally, the average length of such debates in the past five years was 3 hours 56 minutes.
I hope, therefore, that there will be no time limit on those debates. More important than Select Committees, Liaison Committees and other Committee work is the opportunity for Back-Bench Members to speak in this


Chamber, as this is the most important forum. If we are resricted in raising matters that we regard as important, power will be taken away from Back-Bench Members.
In about nine days, we shall break up for a recess lasting nearly three months.

Mr. Biffen: Really?

Mr. Winnick: We have not been told exactly how long the recess will be. If the Leader of the House wishes to tell us now, I shall rush to the Table Office to put down appropriate questions for the autumn. Certainly, we are about to break up for a fairly long time. It is not likely that we shall come back in September.
There are many matters such as unemployment that we regard as important. No doubt Conservative Members also have matters to raise that they regard as important. This will not arise in relation to next week's debate, but if in future the debate were limited to three hours—one-and-a-half hours was clearly farcical—that would be entirely inadequate. Therefore, if I have the opportunity, I shall vote tonight in favour of the proposition that there should be no restriction on the time taken to debate the motion for the Adjournment for the recess.

Mrs. Renée Short: One motion especially relevant to the work of Select Committees is that which provides for three days or, if the amendment of members of the Procedure Committee is accepted, five days to be set aside for consideration of estimates of the Liaison Committee. I hope that five days will be agreed. I am not sure to what extent the Liaison Committee should be given the powers of a Business Committee for Estimates. There are problems attached to the selection of Select Committee reports for debate in the House. More time is needed for such debates.
It is not clear how the procedure will work. On each of the five allotted days, I assume that there could be debates on more than one Estimate and on reports specifically related to the Estimates under consideration by a Select Committee. There is no point in debating an Estimate without a report. In those circumstances, hon. Members have no guidance and are unable to identify relevant matters. That is part of the duty of the Select Committee. The Committees will have to produce reports with a debate specifically in mind and with a view to showing that the Estimate and the report is a suitable candidate for discussion. I am confident that everything recommended by the Select Committee on Social Services will be selected for debate. At least, I always live in hope. This raises the issue of the sort of reports that Select Committees will produce. The Select Committee on Social Services is one of those that has gained considerable experience of examining expenditure. I am surprised that not all Select Committees follow this procedure. The Department of Health and Social Security is responsible for more public expenditure than any other Department, including Defence.
We have the awesome task each year of considering expenditure of £45 billion. We undertake an annual inquiry into this expenditure on the basis of plans contained in the annual Public Expenditure White Paper rather than the Estimates. This year, for a change, we looked at the Estimates themselves. Our report is not yet published. I can, however, inform hon. Members that the

Estimates are far less informative and therefore far less useful to the Select Committee and to the House as a whole. In my view, the Estimates are puny. On the information that they contain, it would be hard enough to write a few paragraphs, let alone a report.
Our inquiries into the White Paper have become longer and more detailed each year as special lines of inquiry have developed. Our first report identified themes that we felt were important. We have been able to pursue those items in subsequent reports, to consider the responses that we received and to follow them with more detailed analysis. Some indication of this process can be seen in what I might call volume terms. Our 1980 report contained 54 paragraphs and 14 recommendations, and our 1981 report 70 paragraphs and 20 recommendations. I must warn the Department that the report due—all being well—to appear next week, will contain about 120 paragraphs and 40 recommendations.
In 1980, we held three oral evidence sessions and published 116 pages of evidence. This year, we held five public sessions and published 230 pages of evidence. This is not simply an inflationary increase. It indicates that we have provided a better service. As the Select Committee has become more experienced in scrutinising public expenditure, it has been able to identify items, often in more than one report, that need careful consideration.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend is making the case for examining public expenditure. I have tried to do that in the employment context in relation to the corporate plan of the MSC. Is my hon. Friend saying that it is better to examine public expenditure by using documents other than the Estimates?

Mrs. Short: Select Committees look at the expenditure projections of the Departments. If my hon. Friend wants to chase a Department on the success or otherwise of the MSC project, it would be profitable for him to look at the resources provided by that Department to carry out the work of the MSC. He would then be in a position to recommend to the Department that more resources should be provided and used in specific ways. If the Select Committees can pursue that line of inquiry, they can present a great deal of information to the Department, the House, and those bodies outside—including the MSC—which are interested in those matters.

Mr. Golding: As a Minister, one of the problems that I had at the end of each year was that of people asking me to reduce the cash limit because the resources made available had not been spent. The problem is that the Estimates bear little relationship to the actual planning of expenditure. That is why I have found that the examination of Estimates, both in Government and on the Select Committee, is not as informative as the examination of other documents and submissions.

Mrs. Short: If my hon. Friend had called the Secretary of State before his Committee and asked him why those resources had been allocated in the way that they had and not been used, he might have had some interesting sessions. He could have called the Secretary of State and the officials of the Department to give those answers. He could have then made his report and said what should have been done.
In the reports, we have emphasised the need for the Department to keep the Committee and Parliament fully


informed and the importance of developing stronger mechanisms for forecasting expenditure more accurately and monitoring it more closely. Those are important areas that Select Committees need to pursue. If that is done, there can be a continuing dialogue with the Department to show what the Select Committee expects to see done.
This year's report will be more interested in details of planned expenditure and policy, because we have been able to build on the experience of two earlier reports. The inquiries have been valuable in several ways. They have enabled the Committee to look at the whole range of the Department's expenditure and to oblige officials and Ministers to do likewise and justify their policies before the Committee and in public. That is important. It has helped us to decide which areas of policy merit further attention, and enabled us to place matters higher on the political agenda.
The Department's capacity for strategic planning as detailed in the 1980 report, and the encouragement of part-time work for the unemployed and disabled, are two areas at which we have looked in successive reports. We have been able to make available a wealth of information that would not otherwise have been available to the public, the House or the bodies outside dealing with the subject in which we were interested. We have procured and published so-called programme budget material which shows the trends in health and social services spending in detail by each service. Such information was not formerly available. This year we have procured from the Department tables with expenditure figures that got round the awkwardness of expenditure plans being expressed in cash and so clarified the real pattern of annual expenditure plans.
We are in favour of producing expenditure reports. But should we offer the House a general report on the DHSS Estimates taken with the White Paper or should we pick out an Estimate? We should consider the way in which the reports are presented, and would welcome guidance from the House. Alternatively, is it to be left entirely to the Committees how they tackle the projects?
The Estimates come out in March. A Committee could not report on them much before May if it did the job properly. By then the financial year will have begun. March is much too late. The Procedure (Finance) Committee is considering the matter and I hope that it will find a way to give Committees the possibility of looking at details of the Government's expenditure plans in the autumn of the preceding year. Committees could then do a proper job, and the Estimates days that we are being offered would be of real value. If not, Committees will be rushed and out of date and it will be too late to change anything, should the House so wish, by June or July, when the debates are likely to take place.
The Procedure (Supply) Committee recommended that each Select Committee should allot some time each Session to the examination of its departmental Estimates. The Social Services Committee has done that each year in one way or another. Now the House is offering some time on the Floor of the House, however limited, for the results of the examination. I welcome the opportunity that will at least allow Select Committees to present more of their work to the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the idea that there should be five days to scrutinise the Estimates.
The priorities that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) talked of can be brought out in the Estimates in the allocation of expenditure. The Select Committee reports can be used to illumine those debates. If the Estimates are adequate that, too, can be a focus of attention. It is important that the focus of attention should be in the Chamber and not upstairs among a tiny group who will become expert in the subject but who have no means, except a debate on the Floor of the House, of revealing inadequacies such as those revealed tonight.
I do not much like the idea of the Liaison Committee deciding the allocation of time. I am on that Committee as I am Chairman of the obscure Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have no particular wish to be on the Liaison Committee. It is simply a collection of Chairmen who are in the habit of arguing on a sectarian basis, for example, about travel matters, and representing the view of their Committee. A Select Committee established for the purpose of allocating time is far more satisfactory. It would have that and no other responsibility.
I suspect that the Committee's reports will be controversial. When they are considered and voted on in the House many hon. Members will criticise the priorities if they do not meet their needs. The Committee will have to spend time considering the matter carefully. The Liaison Committee has other matters on its plate and should not be expanded to cover that function.
Many hon. Members sit in the Chamber for a long time trying to raise subjects. The periodic Adjournments are important. The credit for suggesting the one and a half hours should go to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) who wanted to cut Back Benchers' time and who made the proposition that was accepted by the Select Committee.
With the figures from the Library, we have demonstrated that Adjournment debates have not been a problem. There is no need for a curtailment. Some think that it is naughty to speak both on the Adjournment debate and on the Consolidated Fund Bill—and that happens frequently, perhaps for the convenience of the Government. They put the two matters together to try to curtail the Adjournment debate. The pressure is on hon. Members to shut up and sit down.
The Adjournment debate provides an important opportunity. Ordinary Back Benchers believe that Privy Councillors are treated differently and seem to be called in preference to other hon. Members. The Adjournment debate seems free of Privy Councillors. It is a Back-Bench occasion and a much cherished opportunity. There will be much frustration if there is a three-hour limit.
It should not be beyond the wit of a Government who seek to block a topic of embarrassment to put up one or two hon. Members to spin out a debate. At the moment the Adjournment debate is a Back-Bench occasion when matters are discussed at the discretion of the Back Bencher. By virtue of the motion there will be a shift of control towards the Government. It is only a slight and subtle shift, but it is there and must be regretted. There is no need for the motion.
Hon. Members have not yet mentioned Consolidated Fund Bills. Once during a Labour Government, and


recently during a Conservative Government, Opposition Back Benchers have taken hold of the Bill, an idea has developed and produced results. This place has many vices, but it has a few virtues. One is that sometimes a group of Back Benchers, not with much foresight—because this is the best gossip place in the world and everything is spread within two hours—can hold the Government to ransom by debating the Consolidated Fund Bill because the Government are off-guard. As a result of that, old people's houses will not be sold off. Bungalows allocated to elderly people are not to be sold off. That was an important victory.
Of course, the Government will not drop their guard again. That opportunity has disappeared. When we get into government, we shall have to guard against such a move. But it is not bad for a Government to have to guard against a possibility of some occurrence in this place, because it makes Governments look to this place and, if this place is supposed to be the centre of accountability, they should be looking to this place. It may be a bit inconvenient for the Government to have to think in terms of a closure at half-past 9 in the morning and to have to get in the troops to carry it, but at least they are looking to this place as the focus of attention and accountability.
That is to be transformed. There is the electric possibility of ideas developing, of some accountability and of perhaps wresting some concession from the Government on what is, after all, one of the very few occasions on which a minority Opposition party can do it. That is to be cast out. All the stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be dealt with automatically and completed at nine o'clock the following morning with the occupant of the Chair calling "Order, order", and that will be the end of the debate. It will be so much better ordered, and that possibility of a surprise, which is an important element of accountability, will disappear.
I come finally to the position of the minority Opposition parties. In my view, those who stood as Labour candidates and were elected really cannot claim to have any say in this place unless they are prepared to follow the example of Bruce Douglas-Mann. He changed his view and no longer accepted ideas that he had accepted for many years. He decided to face the electorate and to ask them for their opinion about his changed position. That is entirely reasonable. However, it is entirely unreasonable to form a group by secession and to describe it as a separate political party when its members originally stood as Labour candidates and lived off the back of the Labour Party for many years. Suddenly, they discovered that the Labour Party had changed its mind and that that gave them the pretext for hiving off and forming a separate party.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that apparently Bruce Douglas-Mann was not allowed to be a member of the parliamentary party of the SDP because of his intention to fight a by-election and, therefore, he was not given the Whip?

Mr. Cryer: That is entirely commensurate with the position that 1 have outlined.
The minority Opposition parties get opportunities which are provided by the Labour Opposition. That seems to have worked reasonably satisfactorily, and in my view it should continue.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The core of this argument lies in amendment (a) and the debate about the five Estimates days. We are discussing an attempt to exercise control over Government behaviour and, although there has been a great deal of discussion about scrutiny, that is not the point at issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke eloquently about the importance of debates on the Floor of the House. He is right in one respect in that it is only on the Floor of the House ultimately that effective decisions can be taken. That is as true of finance as it is of legislation.
That is not to say that I undervalue Select Committees. I have a high regard for them. A great many advances can be achieved in Select Committees that cannot possibly, for lack of time and for other reasons, be made in debates across the Floor. But, in the final analysis, if a decision is to be taken, it has to be taken by a vote on the Floor.
The proposition contained in the motion relating to the consideration of Estimates, as modified by amendment (a), is one on which the House should at last be given an opportunity to take some effective decision on expenditure, by being able to say precisely that, on such-and-such a Vote and such-and-such a subhead, it is not prepared to approve £100 million or £500 million but that it must be a figure which the House itself can vote on irrespective of whether the Government want it.
It is the issue of control that is at the heart of the motion relating to the consideration of the Estimates and which is also at the heart of the amendment for five instead of three days. It is obvious that any effective control will be undermined if the House is given a derisory period in which to take its decisions. Therefore, I should argue strongly, with the members of the Select Committee on which I serve, that three days is a derisory time in which to exercise this form of control.
We originally said eight days, which was a sensible proposition. We accepted that in present circumstances it is unlikely that the Government will concede eight days and after mature consideration, and in the light of the debate that we had in February, we agreed that five days would be a reasonable proposition.
There are two aspects to this. First, as has already been pointed out, we shall seek to exercise some control not only over the main Estimates but also over the two sets of supplementary Estimates, the spring and winter, where we may wish to have some of these days allocated. If it so worked out that there were matters on which we wished to vote on the winter supplementaries, the spring and the main Estimates, the three days offered by the Leader of the House would be ludicrously inadequate. For the main Estimates covering £50 billion or £60 billion, we should have only one day on which to vote on certain items in that enormous range of expenditure. That is a ludicrous and unfair proposition to put before the House and it is a bowdlerisation of what the Procedure Committee recommended.
Secondly, it is not a reasonable proposition to put to 14 Select Committees. It has been assumed throughout these debates that decisions on these Estimates days will be taken on the basis of recommendations by Select Committees and that may prove to be the case, but it need not be. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) became lost when looking at the proposition about the


business Committee, because that is only there to allocate time. It has no power to determine motions. These will be put down either on the basis of the recommendation of the Select Committee, or by the Opposition. Under these proposals, any group of Back-Bench Members could table a motion on these days saying that such and such an Estimate should be reduced by £100 million and if that proportion were called the Government would have to defend their position and the House could vote on it.
In general, the proposition will be that the basis of the debates on these days will be the result of deliberations by the Select Committees. I put it to the Leader of the House that it is not a reasonable proposition for 14 important Select Committees that such recommendations as they come up on the main Estimate would have to be confined to a debate on one day, assuming that we allow the other tow days for the supplementaries. The proposition for five days, which would give the House one day each for supplementaries and three days for main Estimates is by no means a way out proposition for the amount of time that should be allowed to debate these Estimates and to take decisions on them.
As to whether the Liaison Committee of the specially constituted Estimates Business Committee should do the allocation of time—it will only be allocating time, not selecting the propositions—I am inclined to the view, reinforced by what has been said in the debate, that the Estimates Business Committee, the ad hoc Committee—

Mr. Moate: It seems to me that I was correct in the way that I interpreted the motions. It says:
consideration of estimates or reports of the Liason Committee … shall stand as first business".
Subsequently, there are the other provisions, whereby the Estimates Business Committee—or the Government motion, which is the Liason Committee—shall put its recommendations as to the allocation of time. That will then become orders. It seems clear, unless I have completely misunderstood it, that selection of the motions will be in the hands of the Liason Committee or the Estimates Business Committee.

Mr. Hooley: I have never heard that the Business Committee had power to select the motions. As I understand it, the Business Committee has always had the power to allocate the time, but surely the selection of motions is in the hands of the Chair—at least, that is my understanding of our procedures. The hon. Member for Faversham has, I think, misinterpreted what we are proposing, and it is a little late now to go into that argument.

Mr. Moate: rose—

Mr. Hooley: I am sorry, but I shall not give way again. Perhaps the Leader of the House will clear up the matter for us. My understanding is that the Business Committee will allocate the time, and the selection of motions to be debated will presumably rest, as it always has, with the Chair.
In my view, the Liaison Committee is not the appropriate body. It was not constituted for that purpose, and has never functioned in that way. I am inclined to agree with the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that the special

interests of some of the members of the Liaison Committee may militate against an altogether impartial allocation of the time available. I therefore support amendment (c).
I am inclined to think that the Procedure Committee made an error of judgment in proposing one and a half hours for the length of time of the debate on the Adjournment. We did it in good faith, because we were concerned about the sleight of hand whereby an hon. Member who did not come off well in the Consolidated Fund Bill ballot could get his own back by spending 45 minutes on the Adjournment debate. All things considered, and in the light of what has been said in the debate, I believe that the Committee was mistaken and that three hours would be more sensible.

Mr. Roper: The Committee was trying to find a way in which the eight days that it wanted could come from Government time, some from Opposition time and some from Back-Bench time. As we do not have eight days, but five, surely three hours, and not 1½hours, is more appropriate.

Mr. Hooley: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). I think that my interpretation is correct, and that the Committee was trying to avoid the sleight of hand whereby an hon. Member who failed in the Consolidated Fund ballot got his own back by taking up an hour or so on the Adjournment debate.
On the allocation of Opposition days, I do not see how any formula will satisfy about 10 Opposition minority parties, which is the present number in the House. I am more inclined to the view that the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is probably sound.
The core of the debate is the proposal in motion No. 3, as proposed to be amended by amendment (a). This is the important issue: to give the House some control over public expenditure. If we pass that, the rest can be tagged on as a commentary.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall be brief, because I do not intend to go through all the motions on the Order Paper, and in the four interventions that I have made I have covered some of what I wanted to say. In fact, I want only to refer to motions Nos. 6 and 7.
Although my name appears on one of the amendments, and it would appear that I accept the three hours proposal, I do not believe that there should be a time limit on the periodic Adjournments. I note that neither of the two most senior Conservative Members, the right hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), thought that there should be a time limit on the periodic Adjournments, and I hope that Conservative Members will take that on board.
I think that there has been a misconception. Paragraph 87 of the Select Committee report says:
The Leader of the House said that he did not think that recess motions were originally designed to be backbench opportunities to talk at length".
Frankly, there is no evidence that Back Benchers talk at length on periodic Adjournment motions.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: They cannot get away with it.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend says that they cannot get away with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall,


North (Mr. Winnick) gave some figures that were provided by the Library about the length of time that Adjournment debates have been taking. I also asked the Library to discover how long the debates have been taking and how many hon. Members spoke during those debates. I shall give as an example five periodic Adjournment debates at the tail end of the Labour Government from Christmas 1977 to Christmas 1978. I have had to deduct a reasonable, conservative estimate of half an hour for the then Leader of the House to reply to the debates. We all know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the Leader of the Opposition, gave full replies to some of those Adjournment debates. By subtracting half an hour from the time limit and one Member from the list I am left with the fact that in the Christmas 1977 Adjournment debate, 22 Members spoke in four hours. In the Easter 1978 adjournment debate, 19 Members spoke in four hours. In the Spring 1978 Adjournment debate 16 Members spoke in two and a half hours. In the Summer 1978 Adjournment debate 18 Members spoke in three hours. At Christmas 1978, 24 Members spoke in four and a half hours.
The average length of a Back-Bench speech was 10·8 minutes. I do not call that speaking at length. It amounts to fewer than 11 minutes for Back Benchers and included in that figure would be the Opposition Front Bench replies. I had not taken account of that and generally speaking those replies would be longer than 11 minutes. We are discussing 11 paltry minutes of the House's time.
I have details of seven recent recess motions under the present Government from Christmas 1980 to Spring 1982. Using the same calculation of deducting half an hour for the Leader of the House to reply and reducing the Members by one, the average length of speech amounts to 11·7 minutes. That is not speaking at length.
It may be that hidden in the averages there will be the exceptionally long speech, but on the other side of the coin there must be some exceptionally short speeches. There will be more than 18 Members speaking in the debates at a time which is usually more convenient to them than an extra Friday would be on Private Members' business. We cannot in all fairness simply swap recess Adjournment debates for an extra Friday on Private Members' business, whether it be motions or Bills, because Fridays are convenient to London Members. Those recess periodic Adjournment debates are not generally hogged by London Members and come at a more convenient time for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We have been given no details of any abuse. I have not been guilty of such abuse although I have not checked the years of the Labour Government for hon. Members swapping from the Consolidated Fund to the recess debates. That suggestion has been dismissed from both sides of the House. It need not happen if the two issues are not taken on the same day. If that had happened each time there way a periodic Adjournment motion somebody would have produced figures since 10 o'clock to prove it. We have had none. We have had no details of the vast number of occasions when this abuse of procedure is supposed to have been used. It is not, of course, a problem, and, given the length of Back-Bench speeches in the examples I have mentioned, I see no justification for the time limit being imposed.
I shall give another reason why, coupled with the periodic Adjournment motion, I shall vote against the motion on Consolidated Fund Bills. My hon. Friend the

Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said that uncertainly in the House is the great weapon not only of the Opposition but of those who are not members of the Government. That includes Government Back Benchers. It has to be said that in this Parliament Government Back Benchers have not used opportunities to raise issues on the floor of the House. I cannot believe that they are all pleased with everything that the Government have done. They have not used the opportunities that are provided. The Government have misinterpreted the recommendations of the Select Committee and are seeking to close some of the avenues of dissent that can be used by Government Back Benchers. They are flying in the face of commitments that appeared in the Conservative election manifesto.
I quoted last week during the debate on the 5 per cent. abatement debate the following sentence:
We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive.
The sentence that preceded that promise was as follows:
Second, the traditional role of our legislature has suffered badly from the growth of government over the last quarter of a century.
I do not want to inject an unfair note at the end of the debate, but the nation was promised less government from the Government. We have already heard the Government boasting about fewer Bills having been introduced this Session than in any Session in the recent past. However, there has been no corresponding increase in Back Benchers' time. If it is claimed that big Government is to become little Government, we should not have motions, especially those on periodic Adjournments and Consolidated Fund Bills closing up valuable time for Back Benchers, whether they be Privy Councillors or London-based Members.
I hope that even at this late hour the Leader of the House will do himself a favour that will be looked upon kindly by hon. Members and withdraw the periodic Adjournments motion. On the evidence of the past five years there is no justification for controlling the length of Adjournment debates. I hope that the figures that I have given and those presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have convinced the right hon. Gentleman of the strength of our argument. No one has produced figures that conflict with it.

Mr. John Silkin: From time to time most of us have lost sight of the fact that very largely we are debating the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure. A committee of Back Benchers has said "This is what we want to see to enable us to assert our rights or, at any rate, to move in that direction". My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who made a very good speech, found himself quoting the Conservative manifesto and talking about the Government and the leadership of the House. The Leader of the House, has responsibility in these matters, but we are debating the decisions of a Back Bench Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, rightly said that the issue is one of parliamentary time. The Leader of the House said correctly that we are trying to arrive at the correct relationship between the time that the Government need for their legislation, the time that the Opposition need to put the party point of view across, and the time that Back


Benchers need to put their own special point of view. Trying to get that balance right will lead to variation according to the Government who are in office, the amount of proposed legislation, the Opposition and even the particular Session.
If we are talking about eight Estimates days, let alone the 14 that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had in mind, we must recognise that they must come from somewhere. They could come entirely from the Opposition, either eight days or 14, entirely from Government time or by taking time from both sources. However, I am certain that which ever party formed the Opposition, whether my right hon. and hon. Friends or Conservative Members, there would be considerable objection if an attempt were made to take time only from them. As for the Government, it is remarkable how, even when they have fewer Bills, they seem to need the legislative time. I make no implications. That is just one of those things that happens in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked what the Government had done with the time that they had saved by sending the Finance Bill to Committee. The answer is that they enabled Members of Parliament to go back home earlier than they would have otherwise. That is true of successive Governments. In 1965 the Finance Bill occupied 23 all-night sittings, many of them consecutive—I bear the scars. Time that has been saved in this way has been used for the benefit of Members, because it is true that debates like this, interesting as they are, are not best conducted during the night. Therefore, getting the balance correct is difficult.
Three days is worth a try. We are arguing about the difference between three and five. If we were surveyors, we would have said four and snap. That is the science of valuation. Let us see how it goes. I have a feeling that in the next Session or the one after we shall come to total agreement anyway, so there will not be much difficulty.
The next discussion was about the Liaison Committee versus the Estimates Business Committee. I do not understand what all the fuss is about. The truth is that every chairman of a Select Committee is elected. That is a curious thing called democracy. What is proposed by the Estimates Business Committee is an appointed Committee. I have heard throughout my life that appointed Committees, dictatorships, are always more efficient than democratically chosen people. I still do not believe it. I still believe that it is infinitely better to use the basis of a group of people who can be trusted. I would even trust my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to be impartial and come to the right decision. That seems to be the best way.
There is a curious thing about the recess motions. The House has said that a debate of one and a half hours is too short, but some hon. Members thought that it was simple to have a time limit. Do they think that it is so simple that we end most of our debates at Ten o'clock? This is an unusual debate. We have suspended the rule. Most debates end at Ten o'clock. Standing Order No. 9 motions—there is one tomorrow—are three-hour debates. Much can be said in three hours. The Government will not attempt to put one speaker on to swamp a three-hour Standing Order No. 9 debate tomorrow. There are the half supply days. Again there is a three hour debate. We do not complain much about that.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, my right hon. Friend has missed the point, which is that these are periods of uncertainty. All the other details that he mentioned are certain and precise. Everyone understands that. It is the dollops of the uncertainty, whether it is the Consolidated Fund or the Adjournment debates, that are useful for democracy in the House. It is the preservation of uncertainty that we are arguing for, not the principle about whether we should limit the time and whether it is the same as for the other debates.

Mr. Silkin: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Exactly that would apply to Standing Order No. 9. Hon. Members are uncertain about whether they will get it. It is uncertain what it will be about and who will speak on it. That is much the same thing.
The feeling that I got from the strongest advocate, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who gave a strong and detailed mathematical account, was that the recess motions were rarely much more than three hours and a few minutes. That was the basis of what I learnt from him.

Mr. Winnick: Why limit the debate to three hours? My argument is that there has been no abuse. The difference between a Standing Order No. 9 debate and a debate on the motion for the Adjournment is that the Standing Order No. 9 debate is on one topic, whereas a number of hon. Members want to use the recess debate to deal with constituency matters. Obviously, if 12 or 13 hon. Members wish to raise such matters, it will be difficult for them all to do so if the debate is limited to three hours.

Mr. Silkin: I doubt whether such a difficulty will arise. In fact, the recess debate is continuous, just like any other. When I have wound up such debates, I have noticed that certain issues stand out. For example, on the last occasion it was nurses' pay. Incidentally, the pay for ancillary health workers will be the theme of tomorrow's Standing Order No. 9 debate, but I have no doubt that constituency aspects will be raised just the same.
I come now to the motion on Opposition days and the disposition of those days. I told the Committee in my evidence that I thought that its idea was too inflexible. The motion tabled by the Leader of the House gives the flexibility that I seek. I was afraid that under the new system, Opposition days would be decided for us. That has not happened, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for relieving me of that fear.
As to the disposition of days, I hope that I might be able to get rid of one of the difficulties for the minority parties, especially the Liberal Party—the feeling of humiliation that under the terms of the motions relating to Opposition days and questions on amendments the Leader of the Opposition would dictate what matters they should debate. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper).
While I have coped with that difficulty in amendment (g) to the motion on Opposition days, I have not done so in regard to the motion relating to questions on amendments. Therefore, if it is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like at an appropriate stage to move a manuscript amendment to deal with that omission. It is consequential on amendment (g) and states:
"Line 2, leave out from 'from' to 'under' in line 4, and insert:


'(2)' to the end of line 11 and inserting 'on the nineteen days at the disposal of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition allotted'.
That puts the two motions on the same footing, and I hope that will be satisfactory.
There is the final question of whether there should be an automatic disposition of days for minority parties.

Mr. Beith: Having regard.

Mr. Silkin: Having regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) scored strongly on that point when he told us exactly how long it would be before the Scottish National Party could be allotted a day. It could, of course, be calculated in minutes, in which case that party could be allocated about 27 minutes each Session. My hon. Friend said that it would be 15 years before it would be allowed a debate.
This is not the right way to proceed. The way we have always done it is the better way. It should be up to the Government or Opposition to allocate to the minority parties. To put it to the Government would put them in a totally false position. It is the Opposition's duty to look after the minority parties.
I notice that the name at the top of the amendment is that of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is sporting of him, because the effect of what he is asking is to give the SDP—only two of whose Members were elected as SDP Members—two and a half times as much Supply time as the Liberal Party. I cannot believe that that is what he intended, and it is not what I would intend or recommend my hon. Friends to support.

Mr. Moate: It has been said that there are, theoretically, ten Opposition parties. If the amendment were to be accepted, would not that at the very least cause some delay and mechanical difficulties in contacting each party?

Mr. Silkin: It would, but let us not confuse Supply days with speeches in the House. On Supply days or on a day such as today, on the Naval Estimates, both parts of the Alliance have front-bench speakers. That has happened even in a three-hour debate. They cannot complain about the time that they have for speeches in debates and in Questions.

Mr. Biffen: The debate has lasted for more than four hours and it has proceeded on two levels. There has been the feeling that this is an occasion of "major constitutional change"—I quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—yet often the debates have dealt with only modest matters. There is nothing paradoxical about that because, although the measures that are before the House are modest, if they are passed this evening nothing will be the same again. An important Rubicon will have been crossed and from now on we shall tend to build upon the decisions that will be taken in a few moments.
I hold that view notwithstanding the well-argued scepticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and my hon. Friend for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I shall give a sketchy outline of the questions contained in my hon. Friend's speech about Estimates days. There is no question of those days being devoted to debates on Select Committee reports. The Liaison Committee will recommend Estimates for debate in the light of views expressed by the Select Committees, and the

motions selected will be debatable. My hon. Friend raised many other points, some of which I cannot comment upon for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—that they anticipate the work that lies ahead of the Committee. However, I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend.
Perhaps the major topic in the debate has been the number of Estimates days—whether there should be three, as proposed in the motion in my name, or five, as in the motion presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. Experience must teach us in that matter. I was grateful for such support as was given to the proposal of three days. My ears are not ringing with commendation of that point of view. It is not a starting level for the new procedure that is below an acceptable minimum.
There has been an active debate about the respective virtues of the Estimates Business Committee and the Liaison Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the virtues of the respective bodies were sufficiently evenly matched and that it was not a matter of great importance. The most powerful argument against the use of the Liaison Committee was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. He feared that the sheer numbers involved would make the Committee unweildy.
Against that I quote as authority some members of the Committee, with some delicacy I trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said—it is a good, sound, crude prejudice that I entirely share—that there are too many Committees in the House. On that basis, I am prepared to see how we go, using the services of the Liaison Committee.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) returned to his anxiety about votes being taken at Ten o'clock. I noted the anxiety, but it is not the major one under discussion. We do not have an embryonic repeat of the Crossman experiment.

Mr. English: I accept that many of those points are small and technical and that the number of days is probably more important. Nevertheless, it seems wrong that the Government should propose in successive speeches that they will put two Standing Orders before the House under both of which they will be required to advance two sets of motions at ten o'clock. When one knows that one has created a nonsense, why do it?

Mr. Biffen: I am not entirely convinced that we are creating a nonsense. If we are, we shall have the wit to learn by our mistakes, exactly as was the case in the Crossman plans.
I turn to what has been the most emotionally charged aspect of the debate—the proposal to adjust the recess Adjournment debates, initially to one-and-a-half hours, as I originally proposed, subsequently to three hours as was proposed by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin).
I have much native sympathy with the arguments that were advanced by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), especially the desire to introduce some parliamentary uncertainty into our lives—anyone with an instinct for laissez-faire likes an unplanned existence, even an unplanned existence in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, there is something unreal in supposing that there was not inherently all the disciplines that come with


the closure in dealing with both the recess Adjournment debate and the debate that arises from the Consolidated Fund Bill. The proposed time that is available to Back Benchers is no less than that which is now available. I hope that that is a development which, in the light of the recommendations, the House will feel disposed to endorse.
That brings me to one of the matters that has evoked sharp controversy—the allocation of Opposition days. We have tried in the motions to reproduce as far as possible the circumstances that existed before the changes. The manuscript amendment that was moved by the right hon. Member for Deptford deals with the problem of the Leader of the Opposition having a say in the choice of topic for a Supply day that had been allocated to a smaller party.
I think that we have attained that objective, but I cannot recommend that we go beyond that and take a decision on the allocation of time as between various Opposition parties. I say that particularly in the context of the present Parliament in which the largest minor Opposition party is there by right of secession rather than by right of election, far outstripping the second largest of the minor Opposition parties. I refer, of course, to the Social Democrats relative to the Liberals.
These are matters of real importance for the House to decide. To write such a formula for the allocation of time into our Standing Orders when one smaller Opposition party is there largely by secession and one is there entirely by election—

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Biffen: —would be to make a judgment when it is quite unnecessary and should be a matter for the decisions of a future Parliament.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 106.

Division No. 280]
[2.35 am


AYES


Alton, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beith, A. J.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Maclennan, Robert


Budgen, Nick
McNally, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Cartwright, John
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F.
Magee, Bryan


Crawshaw, Richard
Ogden, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Penhaligon, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Pitt, William Henry


Dobson, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Dubs, Alfred
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Eggar, Tim
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Roper, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Evans, John (Newton)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Freud, Clement
Short, Mrs Renée


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, John (Islington C)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Horam, John
Stoddart, David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


(Hillhead)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter





Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wellbeloved, James



Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and


Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. Frank Hooley.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Major, John


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mather, Carol


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Mellor, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Moate, Roger


Best, Keith
Moore, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Blaker, Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Myles, David


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Neale, Gerrard


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Nelson, Anthony


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Neubert, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Osborn, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Buck, Antony
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butcher, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Pawsey, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Percival, Sir Ian


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Pollock, Alexander


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Rathbone, Tim


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Rhodes James, Robert


Cope, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rossi, Hugh


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Eyre, Reginald
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sims, Roger


Golding, John
Stanley, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gow, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gray, Hamish
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Thompson, Donald


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hayhoe, Barney
Trippier, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Waddington, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wakeham, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Wheeler, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Wickenden, Keith


Lamont, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Lang, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lee, John



Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Macfarlane, Neil
Mr. Selwyn Glimmer and


MacGregor, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. In accordance with the Business of the House motion passed earlier this afternoon, I shall now put the motions one by one, together with the respective amendments.

Amendment proposed, (b) in line 9, leave out from 'concluded' to end of line 12.—[Mr. Higgins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 109.

Division No. 281]
[2.45 am


AYES


Alton, David
Magee, Bryan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Moate, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Myles, David


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Ogden, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Pitt, William Henry


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cartwright, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Crawshaw, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Roper, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Sandelson, Neville


Dobson, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Short, Mrs Renée


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, John (Newton)
Spearing, Nigel


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Stoddart, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Wellbeloved, James


Horam, John
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)




Winnick, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Maclennan, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNally, Thomas
Mr. Frank Hooley and


McNamara, Kevin
Sir Peter Emery.


McWilliam, John



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Best, Keith
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blaker, Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Lamont, Norman


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lang, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lee, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buck, Antony
Macfarlane, Neil


Butcher, John
MacGregor, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Major, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mather, Carol


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Mellor, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Moore, John


Cope, John
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neale, Gerrard


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Nelson, Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Neubert, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Onslow, Cranley


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Osborn, John


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Golding, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Pawsey, James


Gow, Ian
Percival, Sir Ian


Gray, Hamish
Pollock, Alexander


Gummer, John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Hayhoe, Barney
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, John


Shelton, William {Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watson, John


Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wickenden, Keith


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. David Hunt.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (c) in line 12, at end insert—
'(2A) There shall be a committee, to be called the Estimates Business Committee, consisting of eight Members nominated by the Committee of Selection in accordance with Standing Order No. 86D (Motions for nominations). The quorum of the committee shall be four. The committee shall report their recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made for the consideration of such report the question shall be put forthwith "That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee" and if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.'.—[Mr. Higgins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 110.

Division No. 282]
[2.56 am


AYES


Alton, David
McNamara, Kevin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Magee, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Ogden, Eric


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Osborn, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Budgen, Nick
Penhaligon, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Pitt, William Henry


Cartwright, John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Crawshaw, Richard
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cryer, Bob
Roper, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Sandelson, Neville


Dobson, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Emery, Sir Peter
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Golding, John
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Wellbeloved, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Cr'sby)


Horam, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)



Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Frank Hooley and


McNally, Thomas
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Antony


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Butcher, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cope, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)






du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neubert, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Onslow, Cranley


Eggar, Tim
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Eyre, Reginald
Patten, John (Oxford)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Pawsey, James


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Percival, Sir Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Gow, Ian
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gray, Hamish
Rathbone, Tim


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Hon A.
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rossi, Hugh


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Scott, Nicholas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hayhoe, Barney
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Silkin, Rt Hon J, (Deptford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Stanley, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thompson, Donald


Lamont, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Trippier, David


Lee, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Waddington, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Wakeham, John


MacGregor, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Warren, Kenneth


Major, John
Wells, Bowen


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Wickenden, Keith


Mellor, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Moate, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Moore, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)



Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Myles, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Neale, Gerrard
Mr. David Hunt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order be made:

(1) Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates.
(2) On any such day—

(a) consideration of estimates or reports of the Liaison Committee relating thereto shall stand as first business;
(b) other business may be taken before 10 o'clock only if the consideration of estimates has been concluded; and
(c) questions necessary to dispose of proceedings (other than dilatory motion) on the estimates appointed for consideration under paragraph (1A) of Standing Order No. 86E (Liaison Committee) shall be deferred until ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day — PERIODIC ADJOURNMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,


That, from the beginning of next Session, whenever a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings shall be put not later than one and a half hours after being proposed from the Chair.


That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment made: (e) in line 3, leave out from 'put' to end of line 4 and insert

(3) On a day not later than 6th February, any of the following total amounts may be put down for consideration:

(a) votes on account for the coming financial year;
(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven clear days previously.

(4) On a day not later than 18th March any of the following numbers or total amounts may be put down for consideration:

(a) votes relating to numbers for defence services for the coming financial year;
(b) supplementary estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least seven days previously;
(c) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts have reported that they see no objection to the sums necessary being provided by excess vote.

(5) On a day not later than 5th August, the total amount of estimates which are still outstanding may be put down for consideration.
(6) At least two days' notice shall be given of the votes which are to be put down for consideration under paragraphs (3), (4) or (5) of this order.
(7) On any day to which the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4) or (5) of this order apply Mr. Speaker shall at ten o'clock put the following questions:

(a) on any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services for the coming financial year, that that number be maintained for that service
(b) that the total amount outstanding in respect of each financial year be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes defined in the related votes.

(8) On any day on which Mr. Speaker is directed under paragraph (7) of this order to put any question, no dilatory motion shall be made and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any standing order.
(9) The provisions of this order shall not apply to any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates for war expenditure.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 17 (Appointment of supply and ways and means) shall be repealed and Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions) be amended by inserting, in line 1, at the beginning—
'(1) A ways and means motion may be made in the House without notice on any day as soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's speech.'—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 86E (Liaison Committee) shall be amended by inserting, at the end of line 8—
'(1A) The Committee shall report their recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made that the House do agree with any such report the question shall be put forthwith and, if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. '—[Mr. Biffen.]

`three hours after they have been entered upon, if not previously concluded.'—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, whenever a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings shall be put three hours after they have been entered upon, if not previously concluded.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order be made:

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAYS

Motion made, and Question proposed,


That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business) shall be amended by adding at the end of line 3—


'(2) Matters selected by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition shall have precedence over government business on nineteen allotted days in each session provided that—


(a) two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day, and


(b) not more than two days so allotted may be taken in the form of four half days on any day other than a Friday'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment made: (g) in line 3, leave out from `(2)' to `provided' in line 4 and insert
'Nineteen allotted days in each session shall be at the disposal of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and matters selected on these days shall have precedence over government business.'.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Amendment proposed: (i) in line 8, at end add—
'(3) The allocation of days and half days between the various Opposition parties shall be made by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in consultation with the other Opposition parties in the House and having regard to the number of seats each party holds in the House.'.—[Mr. Berth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 126.

Division 283]
[3.10 am


AYES


Alton, David
Magee, Bryan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ogden, Eric


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Osborn, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Budgen, Nick
Penhaligon, David


Cartwright, John
Pitt, William Henry


Crawshaw, Richard
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Sandelson, Neville


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Emery, Sir Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Horam, John
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)



Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. A. J. Beith and


McNally, Thomas
Mr. John Roper.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony


Best, Keith
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Blaker, Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul




Chapman, Sydney
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Cope, John
Myles, David


Cryer, Bob
Neale, Gerrard


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Nelson, Anthony


Dobson, Frank
Neubert, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Newton, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Onslow, Cranley


Eggar, Tim
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


English, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Evans, John (Newton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Eyre, Reginald
Pawsey, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Forman, Nigel
Pollock, Alexander


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Golding, John
Rathbone, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gow, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Gray, Hamish
Rooker, J. W.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rossi, Hugh


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Hayhoe, Barney
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Short, Mrs Renée


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Skinner, Dennis


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spearing, Nigel


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stanley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stoddart, David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lamont, Norman
Thompson, Donald


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thornton, Malcolm


Lee, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Trippier, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacGregor, John
Viggers, Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Waddington, David


McNamara, Kevin
Wakeham, John


Major, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Warren, Kenneth


Mather, Carol
Wells, Bowen


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Mellor, David
Wickenden, Keith


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Moore, John
Wilkinson, John






Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Ian Lang and



Mr. Archie Hamilton.

(1) On any day on which the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill stands as the first order of the day, the question thereon shall be put forthwith upon the reading of that order, no order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith.

(2) At the conclusion of proceedings on a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, a member of the Government may move 'That this House do now adjourn', the motion shall not lapse at ten o'clock, and if proceedings have not been concluded by nine o'clock in the morning at that sitting, the motion shall lapse at that hour.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business) shall be amended by adding at the end of line 3—

Orders of the Day — QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,


That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amend-ments) shall be amended, in line 9, by leaving out from 'allotted' to the end of line 11 and inserting 'for consideration of matters selected by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition under Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business)'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Manuscript amendment made: in line 2, leave out from the word "from" to the word "under" in line 4, and insert
'(2)' to the end of line 11 and inserting 'on the nineteen days at the disposal of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition allotted'. "—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amendments) shall be amended, in line 9, by leaving out from
'(2)' to the end of line 11 and inserting 'on the nineteen days at the disposal of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition allotted under Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business)'.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 7 (Private business) shall be amended, in line 43, by leaving out

'(2) Nineteen allotted days in each session shall be at the disposal of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and matters selected on these days shall have precedence over government business provided that

(a) two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day, and
(b) not more than two days so allotted may be taken in the form of four half days on any day other than a Friday'.

from 'between' to end of line 45 and inserting 'the sittings on which Government business has precedence and other sittings'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 33 (Selection of amendments) shall be amended, in line 27, by leaving our 'business of supply' and inserting 'estimates'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — EXEMPTED BUSINESS

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall be amended by inserting at the end of line 74 'provided that on any day on which Mr. Speaker is directed to put questions at ten o'clock pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Consideration of Estimates), any such motion shall stand over until those questions have been decided'.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day — Business of The House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business later today following the Standing Order No. 9 debate on the National Health Service pay dispute will now be as follows—Debate on motions on industrial training boards followed by a debate on the motions on social security benefits up-rating orders.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on the motion on the rate support grant reduction (Stirling district) 1982–83 and on the motion on the European Community document 6168/82 on revenue duty on traditional rum.
Consideration of proceedings on the remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] will be postponed until a future occasion.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: With reference to the rate support grant Stirling order and the European Community document, will the order and the document be taken together as a one-and-a-half-hour debate or will they be taken separately as two one-and-a-half-hour debates? What is the sequence?

Mr. Biffen: The connection between Stirling and rum is not so compelling to set aside the traditional practice of one-and-a-half-hours' debate on each.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Leader of the House envisage that the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] will be taken before the recess? What about the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords], which was put down for the same week?

Mr. Biffen: That will depend upon the progress of Government business.

Orders of the Day — Banffshire (Development Area Status)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. David Myles: Abraham Lincoln said that one cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. It may come as a surpise to the Minister to discover that I am not asking for assisted area status to be retained for Banffshire. That may come as a surprise to my local district council, too.
I shall ask the Government to rethink the concept of regional policy. They should consider sensible selective aid. I quote a letter from the district council, lest it should think that I am not representing it as it would wish:
What is required in this District—and I have no doubt in many other parts of the UK—is a selective system of industrial assistance which is primarily aimed at assisting those sectors of industry which are both essential to the economic well being of an area and in danger of collapse without such assistance".
The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Basinstoke, (Mr. Mitchell), when he was Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in a letter dated 27 May 1980 to the then convenor of the Grampian regional council, alleged that selective assistance would be
completely foreign to the nature of the Regional Development Grants scheme".
We should emphasise that that and other parts of the country would benefit substantially from a selective system. The Government should look positively to the introduction of such a system as part of a further and more sophisticated review of economic assistance.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, in the debate on regional industrial policy last Wednesday, said
It is a sobering thought that those areas which were assisted in the 1930s are the ones that are assisted today. What is our reaction to that to be? Is it simply to carry on with the same regional policies for ever?"—[Official Report, 14 July 1982, Vol. 27, c. 1115.]
Banffshire lies sandwiched between the oil boom area of Aberdeen in the east and the much subsidised Highlands and Islands Development Board area in the west. Its economy is based mainly on three industries—agriculture, fishing and whisky distilling. However, it also has a high proportion of small businesses providing valuable employment. Despite the welcome encouragement that the Government have given to those small businesses so far, I still believe that much more remains to be done in removing unnecessary burdens.
My other district council, the Moray district council, sent me a note to remind me that, according to the most recent statistics, the rate of loss of jobs in manufacturing industry is greater in Aberdeen than in any other Scottish city except Glasgow. In the Grampian region as a whole, the unemployment rate is fast approaching that of Glasgow and Strathclyde. Other areas of Scotland, such as Inverness, have a lower unemployment rate than the Grampian region, yet they retain assisted area status and also get IDB aids.
In Keith, a town in my constituency, employment greatly depends on two companies that run the woollen mills. I must not mention them by name as I should have to put one before the other, but those companies face severe competition both at home and abroad from others in the woollen textile trade. They do not mind competing on equal terms—in fact, they are quite able to do so—but


why should they be disadvantaged by having to compete with companies that choose to go to one of the assisted areas and which can therefore be unfairly subsidised?
A few years ago in Aberlour, a plastics firm set up business in an SDA factory, getting all the regional grants that were then available. What will the future role of the SDA be in areas such as Banffshire? That plastics firm has now departed the scene. Joseph Walker of Aberlour, the world famous shortbread bakers, took over the factory and is greatly helping employment in that area. Why should it have to compete with anyone who sets up business over the border in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, where grants and loans can be obtained from all sources?
Thorn Lighting in Buckie is the largest employer of labour in that town—at least it was until recently. It is now finding conditions tough. I am thankful that the rail dispute has been solved, otherwise Thorn Lighting might have found conditions even tougher as it is a major supplier of light bulbs to British Rail. That is why I have a dichotomy of interest when I hear of vandals on the railways. Why should Thorn Lighting's parent company be encouraged to set up in Inverness rather than to continue in Buckie, when the unemployment rate in Inverness is 9 per cent. compared with Buckie's 16·1 per cent?
Why was it right to encourage the setting up of a fish processing plant at Breasecleate in the Western Isles, which almost every fisherman declared could not be viable, and when investment aid will now be denied to such enterprising and expanding fish processing firms as Moray Fish and Cox Fish, which conduct their businesses in Buckie and have an assured supply of the raw material from the Moray Firth ports?
Is it not ludicrous that grants can be available to a large manufacturing company setting up business in Banff under section 8 of the Industry Act? I hasten to add that I do not want such development. The lesson of Invergordon is not lost on me. At the same time, a company such as Grampian Country Chickens, which completely fits into the area's economy, will now qualify for no encouragement even from FEOGA funds. I sincerely hope that the European Court decision that we must again open our ports to poultry imports will not cause that firm insurmountable problems in the future.
There are some efficient construction and building firms in Banffshire, such as Leslie Anderson in Aberchirder and John Walker in Banff, which are both substantial employers in the area. But we never hear them howling for hand-outs. Hamilton Brothers of Buckie, whose name is on many new farm buildings and nearly all of the new whisky warehouses in the north of Scotland and, Simmers the blacksmiths in Keith, who have pioneered a new shed for inwintering sheep, do not continually call for grants, loans and subsidies, but they must compete with those who have businesses in the areas where such grants abound. They do much business in the HIDB area, but with travel problems there must be a great attraction to move their centres of operation into that area.
The same applies to boatyards, such as Macduff Engineering, Jones of Buckie, Herd and Mackenzie and Thompsons' Boatyard, although the latter has had to pay off its work force because of lack of orders. They, too, receive benefits from FEOGA aids, but they are so uncertain that they cannot be relied upon. It is not unheard

of for a fishing skipper to move his home to an HIDB location in order to get a grant to build a fishing vessel and then to move back after some time to his former home. Is it not rather bizarre that all of those solid, home-based, thriving businesses must pay taxes to provide the money that is used to bribe international companies such as Nissan to set up in an unemployment black spot?
Grampian regional council is making improvements to the harbour at Buckie. Is it sensible that if the work is finished by 31 July it will qualify for a European grant, but that if it is not finished by that date—I do not see how it can be—it will not?
Regional policy has demonstrably failed. If not, why are we still assisting the same areas as in the 1930s? If an enterprise zone can be a success in an area of failure, how much greater a success could it be in an area of proven success? Why should every encouragement be given to set up in business in Dumbarton, where the cost per head of providing services by the Labour-controlled council is £132.23, when no encouragement is to be given to set up in Banff, where the cost of similar services by the careful economic management of Banff and Buchan district council is only £68.10 per head? In the part of Banffshire covered by Moray district council, the figure is £66.11.
Furthermore, the rates levied by those two district councils are among the lowest in Britain. Coupled with the Grampian regional rate, which is the lowest in Scotland, it is a most attractive area for rate burdens. I urge the Government to take note. That is not the way to treat areas where the local authorities co-operate.
I turn to how the decision was reached. In December 1979, the Scottish Economic Planning Department commissioned Mr. Stuart McDowall and Dr. Hugh Begg to study the effect of the rapid growth in oil-related employment in the north-east of Scotland on indigenous industries. Was their report ever considered, because there is no evidence that it has been? If one examines the map delineating the areas and considers the retention of assisted area status by Nairn and Forres, one is forced to conclude that someone in an office decided that the map must be tidied up by drawing a straight line. I find those lines invidious.
I urge the Minister to respond to the invitations that were sent to him by the Moray district and Banff and Buchan district councils. Backed up by Grampian regional council and the visit to area to see for himself the potential that the area has to offer but which is being stifled.
The Government should obey their natural instincts, allow market forces a little more say in where industries are situated and cease perpetuating Socialist mistakes by continuing to pursue failed regional policy. It seems to have been devised by outdated theorists on doubtful statistics.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) on three counts: first, as is customary, on his getting an Adjournment debate, especially so soon after my right hon. Friend's statement on the review of assisted areas. It is the first such Scottish Adjournment debate. I congratulate him, secondly, on initiating a refreshingly different debate on assisted areas and travel-to-work areas, so much so that I have had to tear up my speaking notes and move away from my carefully prepared brief, not for the first time, to reply to my hon.


Friend. I congratulate him, thirdly, on raising some fundamental and undoubtedly acute problems on regional policy. As I expect of my hon. Friend, he has shown the robust independence and rugged enterprise that serve his area well and make him a fitting champion of it.
My hon. Friend asked for a fundamental rethinking of regional policy. I believe that he is not questioning, as no one questioned in the debate last week, the necessity for some form of regional policy. Many areas have suffered from long-term structural decline. I shall not go into a long economic analysis now. Suffice it to say that all parties have regarded some form of regional aid as justified for economic and social reasons. My hon. Friend's area has benefited from regional aid and regional development grants. An area that no longer needs aid as a crutch should be regarded as showing signs of strength and progress.
Many hon. Members and local authorities overestimate the importance of regional aid. On the one hand, there are national schemes, to which I shall refer later. On the other is the fact that an area has many other merits that will encourage industries to move there. Concentration purely on assisted area status neglects that aspect and the prevalence of small businesses, which are obviously an important part of my hon. Friend's constituency, and the need for responsible and realistic local authorities.
My hon. Friend referred to high rates. It is right to point out to many local authorities that many businesses are being frightened out of high rating local authority areas. Correspondingly, realistically controlled local authorities will attract businesses. When one examines the merits of an area, one looks for self-reliance, enterprise and good work forces. Those elements do as much as any regional grants to attract industries.
In the changes to regional policy that we announced in 1979, the Government went a long way to concentrate assisted area status on the areas of greatest need. As my hon. Friend knows, they have been reduced in the latest review from 44 per cent. of the country to 27 per cent. That is a substantial move in the direction for which my hon. Friend asks. It reduces the element of what he called unfair competition for areas that are no longer assisted. I hope that he will welcome that reduction.
It is notoriously difficult to analyse the effects of regional policy over the decades. Research demonstrates, in so far as it shows anything, that when assistance is concentrated on the areas of greatest need, it is likely to be most effective.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the importance to industry of a certain amount of stability in regional policy—hence our commitment when we undertook the review in 1979 that there would be no more major changes in regional policy in the lifetime of this Parliament, and hence, too, the fact that the latest review, the results of which were announced this month, is limited in effect. Nevertheless, I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about regional policy as a whole and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Scottish Office.
Turning away from the basic theme, my hon. Friend also asked how the decisions relating to the North of Scotland were taken in the latest review. He suggested that the Government did not consider the McDowall-Begg report on the oil-affected areas in Scotland in relation to those decisions. I assure him that we did. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland promised this when he welcomed the report in September 1981 for the

contribution that it made to the Government's knowledge of the economic background and prospects of the area studied.
My hon. Friend will notice that all four of the Scottish areas to retain assisted area status as a result of the special review that we have just undertaken were included in the study area of the McDowall-Begg report. That report will continue to be of value when matters such as infrastructure needs in the Grampian region and other oil-affected areas are considered.
In his comments about where we drew the line, I think that my hon. Friend took the point that in relation to the Nairn and Forres changes we simply drew a line across the map. I assure him that the process was far more sophisticated than that, although I am the first to admit that the selection of assisted areas is not an exact science. I shall explain to him how this was done.
As my hon. Friend will know, unemployment is not the only criterion in designating an assisted area, but it is an important one. In this context, we examine unemployment figures over a period and we look at trends. In 1981, unemployment in the Forres area averaged 19·3 per cent. and in Nairn 16 per cent., while in the three travel-to-work areas affecting my hon. Friend's constituency the figures were 14·4 per cent. in Buckie, 10·7 per cent. in Elgin and 8·9 per cent. in Banff. Those figures show that the first two areas were more seriously affected.

Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend accept that the unemployment figure for Forres is somewhat distorted by the number of Service wives there who are registered as unemployed?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, it is not an exact science, but one tries as far as possible to consider all the factors.
It is important to consider overall unemployment levels in a travel-to-work area as a totality. That is the measure that we use across the United Kingdom as a whole. I quoted the 1981 figures to show one reason why those two travel-to-work areas were selected for change compared with the 1979 proposals. My hon. Friend may well draw attention to the latest figures for one month, in June this year. As I have said, one must consider trends, so it is not really fair or correct in terms of the way in which this process is carried out to consider the figures for just one month. My hon. Friend quoted a figure of 16·1 per cent. for Buckie in June, but in May the figure was 14 per cent. as compared with 15 per cent. in Nairn and 21·4 per cent. in Forries. Again, that shows the relative way in which these travel-to-work areas were considered.
My hon. Friend also commented on Inverness. It is true that the level of unemployment in Inverness is well below that of, say, Buckie. Inverness, however, was not downgraded in 1979 and the current review dealt with areas downgraded by more than one stage in 1979. We considered certain other areas in which trends or difficulties stood out and we made very limited changes through some upgrading, but we deliberately decided not to downgrade any more travel-to-work areas beyond those announced in 1979 because we had not announced that we would even be considering that, because we were anxious to achieve stability and because if we had downgraded those areas now we should have had to give some years' notice in order to achieve the stability, which would have meant a further stage in the whole process. We decided,


therefore, not to downgrade any areas that were not selected for downgrading in 1979. That explains the position of Inverness.
My hon. Friend made some comments about Buckie harbour. An application for European regional development fund assistance for the Buckie harbour project was recently submitted to the European Commission. So long as the bulk of expenditure will have been incurred by 31 July, the project can be approved for grant. I understand that this is, in fact, the case. I hope that there will be no difficulties. I shall, however, check and let my hon. Friend know.
My hon. Friend also asked about other national aids and drew attention to the fact that his local authorities—or at least one of them—were urging a more selective form of financial assistance. This is important. There are a number of ways in which his constituency will still benefit. There are the national departmental schemes from my Department concentrated on high technology, small businesses and on selective financial asistance.
There are a whole variety of schemes where I believe that the take-up is sometimes not strong enough in the assisted areas, partly through lack of awareness of them and partly through over-concentration in the past on regional development grants. I hope that my hon. Friend and his local authorities will do everything possible to draw these national schemes to the attention of firms in the constituency.
As the Minister with responsibility for small firms, I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about unnecessary burdens on small firms. I am always keen to remove such burdens. If my hon. Friend has particular examples to which he wishes to draw my attention, I shall be delighted to hear from him.
I should like to refer next to the activities of the Scottish Development Agency. These are illustrated by its investment of £100,000 in Grampian Country Chickens in Banff. Contrary to what my hon. Friend has stated, I believe that Grampian Country Chickens received that investment and would receive it irrespective of assisted area status. The SDA's assistance to small businesses in the district has resulted in £96,000 being provided in financial aid. In the agency's land renewal programme for the area, the main scheme is currently the rehabilitation of the Aberchirder, or what, according to my hon. Friend, is called the Foggy Loan, Causeway End Quarry, which is now out for tender. The agency is also considering a list of derelict land sites, many having war-time remains, provided by the Banff and Buchan district council for future attention.
There are various European schemes of financial assistance not confined to assisted areas. The European

Social Fund will provide financial support for training and retraining schemes for special groups of workers such as redundant agricultural and textile workers, migrants, women, the handicapped and young people. The latter category is of particular importance as the whole of Scotland is a youth priority area which means that the prospects of any applications for assistance are enhanced.
My hon. Friend talked about FEOGA grants which may also be available for agricultural activities. I know that these are of particular relevance to my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend referred to boat-builders. The Fishing Boat Builders Association has frequently expressed concern over the situation in boatyards. The Government are well aware that new orders are scarce. However, there is no shortage of financial incentives to encourage fishermen to invest in new vessels of the type constructed in Scottish yards. The ready availability of grants and loans from the Sea Fish Industry Authority supplemented by the possibility of a grant from European Community sources amounts to more investment assistance than is available to many sectors of industry.
I hope that the further interim scheme of European Agricultural guidance and guarantee fund grants—the FEOGA grants—will shortly be approved by the Community and that this will encourage the placing of new orders. In the longer term, a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy should dispel some of the uncertainty about the future which may be inhibiting increased investment.
I noted my hon. Friend's remarks about the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I hope to visit the north of Scotland in early September and to be seeing members of the board. I shall discuss my hon. Friend's comments with them. My hon. Friend invited me to come to his area. I know that the area of the north of Scotland that I shall be covering is huge. I shall be happy to consult my hon. Friend about what he may wish me to do in the area whether this concerns local authorities or small businesses to see whether some arrangements can be fitted into my visit. If this is possible, I hope to continue the dialogue that we are now carrying on here in the House of Commons on what has been a steamy late night in July in his own delightful countryside in the refreshing climate that prevails in September. I hope to be able to demonstrate that the loss of assisted area status is not crucial to the region, that its own tremendous benefits will enhance the prospects of attracting industry in the future and that there are many other ways in which firms in his area can be assisted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock am.